Sorry, your browser does not support JavaScript!
UpasanaYoga.org
ऐतरेय-उपनिषद्
Aitareya Upaniṣad
with शाङ्कर-भाष्यम्

English translation by A.K. Aruna
Translation of Bhāṣyam by Swami Gambhirananda

🙏
Khaṇḍa 1.1 (1) Khaṇḍa 1.2 (2) Khaṇḍa 1.3 (3) Khaṇḍa 2.1 (4) Khaṇḍa 3.1 (5)

Format by A.K. Aruna, 2023 ver.6.0: UpasanaYoga. If downloaded, requires installed Devanāgarī Siddhanta1.ttf font, downloadable from UpasanaYoga. If run from UpasanaYoga website, it alternatively can use online Web Font. Any Devanāgarī in parentheses () is an alternate reading of text in Red. Top button "Collapse all panels" contracts the view in which individual items can be re-expanded, or again the top button "Restore all panels" reloads page to original view. The Devanagari text source is the Sharada Peetham, Sringeri (advaitasharada.sringeri.net). Chanted by Ravindera Sathe.
Aitareya Upaniṣad from the Ṛg Veda, is a brāhmaṇa (prose text) with one ṛk (verse) inserted. The Upaniṣad starts with a cosmology based on Ātmā (the ultimate self), how that self manifests at all this, and ends with an enquiry into the real nature of that self.
The Upaniṣad has two different numberings: three chapters with mantras (the 1st chapter being sub-divided into 3 sections), or five sections with mantras.

by A.K. Aruna
First Update to HTML Jan 2018 with Creative Commons International License:
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/, or click the following logo:
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

🔗  ओं, वाङ् मे॒ मन॑सि॒ प्रति॑ष्ठिता। मनो॑ मे॒ वाचि॒ प्रति॑ष्ठितम्। आ॒विर् आ॒वीर्म॑ एधि। वे॒दस्य म॒ आणी᳚स्थः। श्रु॒तं मे॒ मा प्रहा॑सीः। अ॒नेना॒धी॑तेन। अहो-रा॒त्रान् सन्द॑धामि। ॠ॒तं व॑दिष्यामि। स॒त्यं व॑दिष्यामि। तन् माम् अ॑वतु। तद् व॒क्तार॑म् अवतु। अव॑तु॒ माम्। अव॑तु व॒क्तार॒म् अव॑तु व॒क्तार᳚म्। ओं शान्तिः॒ शान्तिः॒ शान्तिः॑॥
Om; vāc, asmad, manas, pratiṣṭhitā. Manas, asmad, vāc, pratiṣṭhita. Āvis, āvis, asmad, √i. Veda, asmad, āṇī-stha. Śruta, asmad, mā, pra-√hā. Idam, adhīta. Ahan-rātra, sam-√dhā. Ṛta, √vad. Satya, √vad. Tad, asmad, √av. Tad, vaktṛ, √av. √Av, asmad. √Av, vaktṛ, √av, vaktṛ. Om, śānti, śānti, śānti.

परिसमाप्तं कर्म सहापरब्रह्मविषयविज्ञानेन। सैषा कर्मणो ज्ञानसहितस्य परा गतिरुक्थविज्ञानद्वारेणोपसंहृता।
Introduction: Earlier than this
[•The Aitareya Upaniṣad forms the 4th, 5th and 6th chapters of the second Āraṇyaka of Aitareya Brāhmaṇa. The Upaniṣad is concerned only with knowledge of the Self, whereas the earlier portions deal with Karma, associated with meditation.•]
was finished Karma [•Rites, duties, etc.•] along with the knowledge of (i.e. meditation on) the inferior Brahman (i.e. Hiraṇya-garbha). This highest result that is such and achievable through Karma, associated with meditation, was concluded with the meditation on Uktha
[•Uktha is Prāṇa (lit. Vital Force, i.e. Hiraṇya-garbha – cosmic power of knowledge and action); and meditation on it consists in thinking, ‘I am that Uktha or Prāṇa.’ Such deep concentration ensures identity with Prāṇa.•].

एतत्सत्यं ब्रह्म प्राणाख्यम्। एष एको देवः। एतस्यैव प्राणस्य सर्वे देवा विभूतयः। एतस्य प्राणस्यात्मभावं गच्छन् देवता अप्येति इत्युक्तम्।
It was said, ‘This Brahman that is Truth is called Prāṇa; this is only Deity’ (Kau. II. 2; Mai. VII. 7) ‘All the gods are but manifestations of this Prāṇa’; ‘Attaining identity wit (the Deity, Brahmā, Immortality, that is) this Prāṇa, one becomes united with the gods.’

सोऽयं देवताप्ययलक्षणः परः पुरुषार्थः। एष मोक्षः। स चायं यथोक्तेन ज्ञानकर्मसमुच्चयेन साधनेन प्राप्तव्यो नातः परमस्तीत्येके प्रतिपन्नाः।
Some people believe that the highest human goal consists in this merger in the Deity, that this is emancipation, that this is attainable by the means of a combination of meditation and Karma as described, and that there is nothing higher than this.

तान्निराचिकीर्षुरुत्तरं केवलात्मज्ञानविधानार्थम् ‘आत्मा वा इदम्’ इत्याद्याह।
With a view to refuting them and enjoining the knowledge of the absolute Self, the subsequent text says, ‘In the beginning this was but the absolute Self alone’, etc. (AitU.1.1.1).

कथं पुनरकर्मसम्बन्धिकेवलात्मविज्ञानविधानार्थ उत्तरो ग्रन्थ इति गम्यते?
Objection: How is it, again, known that the subsequent text is meant for enjoining the knowledge of the absolute Self, unconnected with Karma?

अन्यार्थानवगमात्। तथा च पूर्वोक्तानां देवतानामग्न्यादीनां संसारित्वं दर्शयिष्यत्यशनायादिदोषवत्त्वेन ‘तमशनायापिपासाभ्यामन्ववार्जत्’ (AitU.1.2.1) इत्यादिना। अशनायादिमत्सर्वं संसार एव परस्य तु ह्मणोऽशनायाद्यत्ययश्रुतेः।
Answer: Since no other meaning can be deduced. Moreover, through such texts as ‘He subjected Him
[•Virāṭ, who is the gross manifestation of Hiraṇya-garbha.•]
to hunger and thirst’ (AitU.1.2.1) etc., it will be shown that the gods such as Fire, mentioned earlier, are included in the phenomenal world because of the defects of their hunger etc. All that is subject to hunger etc. is surely within the phenomenal world, whereas the supreme Brahman is mentioned in the Vedas as transcendental to hunger and the rest.

भवत्वेवं केवलात्मज्ञानं मोक्षसाधनम्, न त्वत्राकर्म्येवाधिक्रियते; विशेषाश्रवणात्। अकर्मिण आश्रम्यन्तरस्येहाश्रवणात्।
Objection: Even if it be thus conceded that the knowledge of the absolute Self is the means for emancipation, it does not follow that a non-performer of Karma alone is qualified for this, since no such specification is heard of, there being no mention in this Upaniṣad of any non-performer of Karma (i.e. a sannyāsī) belonging to a distinct order.

कर्म च बृहतीसहस्रलक्षणं प्रस्तुत्य अनन्तरमेवात्मज्ञानं प्रारभ्यते। तस्मात्कर्म्येवाधिक्रियते।
Again, the knowledge of the Self is begun only after introducing the rite called Bṛhatī-sahasra. Therefore it is the performer of karma who is in fact entitled to this.

न च कर्मासम्बन्ध्यात्मविज्ञानम्, पूर्ववदन्ते उपसंहारात्।
Nor is the knowledge of the Self incompatible with karma, for the summing up (here) at the end conforms to what went earlier.

यथा कर्मसम्बन्धिनः पुरुषस्य सूर्यात्मनः स्थावरजङ्गमादिसर्वप्राण्यात्मत्वमुक्तं ब्राह्मणेन मन्त्रेण च ‘सूर्य आत्मा’ (ऋ. सं. १-११५-१) इत्यादिना,
Just as it was stated by the (earlier) brāhmaṇa (portion) that the Puruṣa
[•The conscious, all-pervasive Reality that dwells everywhere.•]
associated with karma and identified with the Sun, is the self of all beings, mobile and immobile,
[•First His identity with the Sun is shown in, ‘He indeed illumines this world – the One that shines as the Being (in the Sun)’, and then He is shown as all-pervading in, ‘Therefore they known Him as a hundred-rayed – on One that is that very Puruṣa’, and, ‘It is the vital force indeed that becomes all these’ (ChanU.5.1.15; 7.15.4).•]
and as it was confirmed by the mantra (portion) in such texts as, ‘The Sun is the Self (of the universe, moving and motionless)’ (R. I. cxv. 1),

तथैव ‘एष ब्रह्मैष इन्द्रः’ (AitU.3.1.3 इत्याद्युपक्रम्य सर्वप्राण्यात्मत्वम्। ‘यच्च स्थावरम्, सर्वं तत्प्रज्ञानेत्रम्’ (AitU.3.1.3) इत्युपसंहरिष्यति।
Similarly (here), too, the start will be made with ‘This one is (the inferior) Brahman; this is Indra’ (AitU.3.1.3), and the conclusion will be, ‘All the creatures that there are, which move or do not move, are impelled by Consciousness’ (AitU.3.1.3).

तथा च संहितोपनिषत् – ‘एतं ह्येव बह्वृचा महत्युक्थे मीमांसन्ते’ (ऐ. आ. ३-२-३-१२) इत्यादिना कर्मसम्बन्धित्वमुक्त्वा ‘सर्वेषु भूतेष्वेतमेव ब्रह्मेत्याचक्षते’ इत्युपसंहरति।
Similarly, too, in the Upaniṣad of the saṃhitā (portion) the Self will be spoken of as associated with karma, in the text, ‘The followers of the Ṛg-Veda deliberate on this very Entity in the hymn called Bṛhatī-sahasra’, etc. (Ai. A. III. ii. 3. 12), and the conclusion will be with, ‘They speak of it alone as the Self in all beings,’ etc.

तथा तस्यैव ‘योऽयमशरीरः प्रज्ञात्मा’ इत्युक्तस्य ‘यश्चासावादित्य एकमेव तदिति विद्यात्’ इत्येकत्वमुक्तम्।
Similarly, too, the identity of the One that is referred to in, ‘That which the bodiless conscious Self,’ is spoken of in, ‘One should know That as identical with Him that is in the sun’.

इहापि ‘कोऽयमात्मा’ (AitU.3.1.1) इत्युपक्रम्य प्रज्ञात्मत्वमेव ‘प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म’ (AitU.3.1.3) इति दर्शयिष्यति। तस्मान्नाकर्मसम्बन्ध्यात्मज्ञानम्।
Here, again, commencing with, ‘Which is It that we worship as this Self?’ (AitU.3.1.1), the identity with Consciousness Itself will be shown in ‘Consciousness is Brahman’ (AitU.3.1.3). Therefore the knowledge of the Self is not disconnected with karma.

पुनरुक्त्यानर्थक्यमिति चेत् – ‘प्राणो वा अहमस्म्यृषे’ इत्यादिब्राह्मणेन ‘सूर्य आत्मा’ इति च मन्त्रेण निर्धारितस्यात्मनः ‘आत्मा वा इदम्’ इत्यादिब्राह्मणेन ‘कोऽयमात्मा’ (AitU.3.1.1) इति प्रश्नपूर्वकं पुनर्निर्धारणं पुनरुक्तमनर्थकमिति चेत्,
Counter-objection: (On that supposition) the present text becomes useless because of tautology. How? The Self having been ascertained by the brāhmaṇa (portion) in, ‘O Ṛṣi, I am indeed Prāṇa’, and by the mantra (portion) in, ‘The Sun is the Self’ (R. I. cxv. 1), it is useless and tautological to ascertain It over again by the brāhmaṇa (i.e. the Upaniṣad portion) by raising the question, ‘Which is It that we worship as this Self?’ (AitU.3.1.1) and then answering that ‘all this is but the Self’, and so on.

न; तस्यैव धर्मान्तरविशेषनिर्धारणार्थत्वान्न पुनरुक्ततादोषः। कथम्? तस्यैव कर्मसम्बन्धिनो जगत्सृष्टिस्थितिसंहारादिधर्मविशेषनिर्धारणार्थत्वात् केवलोपास्त्यर्थत्वाद्वा;
Opponent: Not so, for no fault of tautology is involved, inasmuch as this is meant to determine some special qualities of that very Self. How? Of that very Self, as connected with Karma, it is sought to determine some special attributes such as (the power of) creation, protection, and dissolution of the world, or to present It as an object of meditation in Its unconditioned state.

अथवा, आत्मेत्यादिः परो ग्रन्थसन्दर्भः आत्मनः कर्मिणः कर्मणोऽन्यत्रोपासनाप्राप्तौ कर्मप्रस्तावेऽविहितत्वाद्वा केवलोऽप्यात्मोपास्य इत्येवमर्थः। भेदाभेदोपास्यत्वाच्च ‘एक एवात्मा’ कर्मविषये भेददृष्टिभाक्। स एवाकर्मकाले अभेदेनाप्युपास्य इत्येवमपुनरुक्तता।
To explain in the second alternative: From the fact that meditation on the Self (as such) was not enjoined in the context of karma, it might be inferred that the Self, which is (found) associated with karma, is not to be meditated upon apart from karma; therefore the purport of the (following) text, beginning with ‘Ātmā’ etc., is that the unconditioned Self, too, is to be meditated on. Or since the Self is to be worshipped both as different and non-different (from oneself), the same Self that is subject to the idea of difference in a context of karma is again to be meditated on as non-different outside (that) karma. Thus there is no tautology.

‘विद्यां चाविद्यां च यस्तद्वेदोभयं सह। अविद्यया मृत्युं तीर्त्वा विद्ययामृतमश्नुते’ (IsU.11) इति ‘कुर्वन्नेवेह कर्माणि जिजीविषेच्छतं समाः’ (IsU.2) इति च वाजिनाम्।
Moreover, according to the adherents of the Vāja-saneyā Section (of the Yajur-Veda) there are the statements, ‘He who knows these two, Vidyā (knowledge) and a-vidyā (rites etc.), together, attains immortality through vidyā by crossing over death through a-vidyā’ (IsU.11) and ‘By doing karma indeed should one wish to live here for a hundred years’ (IsU.2).

न च वर्षशतात्परमायुर्मर्त्यानाम्, येन कर्मपरित्यागेन आत्मानमुपासीत। दर्शितं च ‘तावन्ति पुरुषायुषोऽह्नां सहस्राणि भवन्ति’ इति। वर्षशतं चायुः कर्मणैव व्याप्तम्। दर्शितश्च मन्त्रः ‘कुर्वन्नेवेह कर्माणि’ इत्यादि;
Not that mortals can have more than a hundred years as the fullest span of life, so as to able to meditate on the Self after renouncing karma (after a hundred years). And it has been shown in the Aitareya Āraṇyaka, ‘The span of a man’s life comprises as many thousands of days.’
[•The Āraṇyaka first points out that the śāstra (hymn) called Bṛhatī-sahasra has got 36,000 letters in it, and then states that a man’s life consists of as many days, that is, 100 years.•]
Now, the hundred years of life are packed with karma; and the mantra, ‘By doing karma indeed…’ has just been quoted.

तथा ‘यावज्जीवमग्निहोत्रं जुहोति’ ‘यावज्जीवं दर्शपूर्णमासाभ्यां यजेत’ इत्याद्याश्च; ‘तं यज्ञपात्रैर्दहन्ति’ इति च। ऋणत्रयश्रुतेश्च।
Similar are the texts, ‘One should perform the Agni-hotra sacrifices as long as one lives’, ‘One should perform the Darśa and Pūrṇa-māsa (new moon and full moon) sacrifices as long as one lives,’ and others, as well as, ‘Him they burn along with the sacrificial vessels.’

तत्र हि पारिव्राज्यादिशास्त्रम् ‘व्युत्थायाथ भिक्षाचर्यं चरन्ति’ (BrhU.3.5.1, BrhU.4.4.22) इत्यात्मज्ञानस्तुति-परोऽर्थवादोऽनधिकृतार्थो वा।
Besides, there is the Veda text speaking of the three debts.
[•‘The Brāhmaṇa, from his birth, is under three debts’ (Tai. S. VI. iii. 10) – to the gods, manes, and sages.•]
As for the scriptural text dealing with monasticism etc., to wit, ‘Knowing this very Self the Brāhmaṇas renounce… and lead a mendicant life’ (BrhUEng.3.5.1, 4.4.22), it is eulogistic, meant to praise the knowledge of the Self. Or it is meant for the disqualified ones (e.g. the blind, the lame, and others [•Who cannot undertake Veda rites.•]).

न, परमार्थात्मविज्ञाने फलादर्शने क्रियानुपपत्तेः –
Vedāntin: Not so, for when the supreme knowledge is achieved, there can be no idea of results, and so no action is possible.

यदुक्तं कर्मिण एव चात्मज्ञानं कर्मसम्बन्धि चेत्यादि,
As for the statements that ‘the knowledge of the Self comes to the man engaged in karma’, that ‘it is associated with karma,’ and so on,

तन्न; परं ह्याप्तकामं सर्वसंसारदोषवर्जितं ब्रह्माहमस्मीत्यात्मत्वेन विज्ञाने, कृतेन कर्तव्येन वा प्रयोजनमात्मनोऽपश्यतः फलादर्शने क्रिया नोपपद्यते। They are wrong. Action is inconceivable in one who has the knowledge of Brahman as his Self, comprised in the realization, ‘I am the supreme Brahman in which all desires are fulfilled and which is above all the worldly shortcomings,’ and who has no idea of results because he feels no need for anything to be got for himself from actions done or to be done (by him).

फलादर्शनेऽपि नियुक्तत्वात्करोतीति चेत्,
Objection: Though he may not perceive any benefit therefrom, he still acts because of the (scriptural) injunction.

न; नियोगाविषयात्मदर्शनात्।
Answer: No, for he has realized the Self that is beyond the range of injunctions.

इष्टयोगमनिष्टवियोगं वात्मनः प्रयोजनं पश्यंस्तदुपायार्थी यो भवति, स नियोगस्य विषयो दृष्टो लोके, न तु तद्विपरीतनियोगाविषयब्रह्मात्मत्वदर्शी।
It is seen in the world that one comes within the scope of injunction so long as one feels the need for acquiring some desirable thing or avoiding some undesirable thing for himself and seeks for a means thereof; but not is so the one who is of a contrary disposition and has realized the identity of the Self with Brahman that cannot be subjected to any injunction.

ब्रह्मात्मत्वदर्श्यपि संश्चेन्नियुज्येत, नियोगाविषयोऽपि सन्न कश्चिन्न नियुक्त इति सर्वं कर्म सर्वेण सर्वदा कर्तव्यं प्राप्नोति। तच्चानिष्टम्।
If a man who has realized the identity of the Self and Brahman has still to bow down to injunctions, even though he is beyond all mandates, then there will remain none who is outside the pale of scriptural direction; and so all actions will become fit to be undertaken by all and sundry at all times. But that is undesirable.

न च स नियोक्तुं शक्यते केनचित्। आम्नायस्यापि तत्प्रभवत्वात्। न हि स्वविज्ञानोत्थेन वचसा स्वयं नियुज्यते। नापि बहुवित्स्वामी अविवेकिना भृत्येन।
Nor can he be directed by anybody, for even the scriptures emanate from him. Not that anyone can himself be impelled by any sentence issuing out of his own wisdom. Nor is a well-informed master commanded by an ignorant servant.

आम्नायस्य नित्यत्वे सति स्वातन्त्र्यात्सर्वान्प्रति नियोक्तृत्वसामर्थ्यमिति चेत्,
Objection: The Vedas, being eternal, are independent, and hence have the mandatory power over all.

न; उक्तदोषात्। तथापि सर्वेण सर्वदा सर्वमविशिष्टं कर्म कर्तव्यमित्युक्तो दोषोऽप्यपरिहार्य एव।
Answer: No, for the defect (of such an argument) has been already pointed out. Even on this assumption, the defect of every duty becoming fit to be indiscriminately undertaken at all times by all and sundry persists unavoidably.

तदपि शास्त्रेणैव विधीयत इति चेत् – यथा कर्मकर्तव्यता शास्त्रेण कृता, तथा तदप्यात्मज्ञानं तस्यैव कर्मिणः शास्त्रेण विधीयत इति चेत्,
Objection: That, too, is enjoined by the scriptures. (To explain:) As performance of duties is prescribed by scriptures, so is the knowledge of the Self prescribed for that man of karma by the scriptures themselves.

न; विरुद्धार्थबोधकत्वानुपपत्तेः। न ह्येकस्मिन्कृताकृतसम्बन्धित्वं तद्विपरीतत्वं च बोधयितुं शक्यम्। शीतोष्णत्वमिवाग्नेः। न चेष्टयोगचिकीर्षा आत्मनोऽनिष्टवियोगचिकीर्षा च शास्त्रकृता, सर्वप्राणिनां तद्दर्शनात्। शास्त्रकृतं चेत्, तदुभयं गोपालादीनां न दृश्येत, अशास्त्रज्ञत्वात्तेषाम्।
Answer: No, for it is impossible that the scriptures should be prescribing contradictory things. Just as heat and cold cannot both be averred of fire, so it is not possible to instruct, for the same person, association with as well as dissociation from present and future actions. Nor are the desires to attain the delectable and avoid the detestable for oneself creations of the scriptures, for all beings are seen to have them. Had these two been the products of the scriptures, they would not have been found in the cowherds and others, who are ignorant of scriptures.

यद्धि स्वतोऽप्राप्तम्, तच्छास्त्रेण बोधयितव्यम्। तच्चेत्कृतकर्तव्यताविरोध्यात्मज्ञानं शास्त्रेण कृतम्, कथं तद्विरुद्धां कर्तव्यतां पुनरुत्पादयेत् शीततामिवाग्नौ, तम इव च भानौ?
The scriptures have to instruct about those things only that are not self-evident. That being so, if the scriptures have produced the knowledge of the Self, opposed to (ideas of) duties that have been accomplished or are yet to be accomplished, how can they again produce the sense of duty that runs counter to it, like coldness in fire or darkness in the sun?

न बोधयत्येवेति चेत्,
Objection: The scriptures certainly do not generate such a knowledge.

न; ‘स म आत्मेति विद्यात्’ (कौ. उ. ३-९) ‘प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म’ (AitU.3.1.3) इति चोपसंहारात्। ‘तदात्मानमेवावेत्’ (BrhU.1.4.10) ‘तत्त्वमसि’ (ChanU.6.8.7) इत्येवमादिवाक्यानां तत्परत्वात्। उत्पन्नस्य च ब्रह्मात्मविज्ञानस्याबाध्यमानत्वान्नानुत्पन्नं भ्रान्तं वा इति शक्यं वक्तुम्
Answer: No, since the conclusion is made thus: ‘One should know thus: “He is my Self” (Kau. III. 9), ‘Consciousness is Brahman’ (AitU.3.1.3). And sentences such as, ‘It knew only Itself (as “I am Brahman"; therefore It became all)’ (BrhUEng.1.4.10), ‘Thou art That’ (ChanU.6.8.7 – 16.3), bear on the same idea. And since the knowledge of the identity of the Self and Brahman, once it has emerged, is never sublated, its origination cannot be denied or pronounced erroneous.

त्यागेऽपि प्रयोजनाभावस्य तुल्यत्वमिति चेत् ‘नाकृतेनेह कश्चन’ (BhG.3.18) इति स्मृतेः – य आहुर्विदित्वा ब्रह्म व्युत्थानमेव कुर्यादिति, तेषामप्येष समानो दोषः प्रयोजनाभाव इति चेत्,
Objection: With regard to renunciation, too, there is an equal absence of need, in accordance with the Smṛti, ‘(He has no object in this world to gain by doing action), nor by non-performance’ (BhG.3.18). Those who say that after realizing Brahman one must resort to renunciation are equally open to the same charge of ‘absence of need.’

न; अक्रियामात्रत्वाद्व्युत्थानस्य। अविद्यानिमित्तो हि प्रयोजनस्य भावः, न वस्तुधर्मः, सर्वप्राणिनां तद्दर्शनात्,
Answer: No, since renunciation consists in mere cessation from activity. The feeling of want follows from ignorance and is not inherent in any object, for this fact (of feeling of want towards an object) is in evidence in all beings
[•Even in people who are ignorant of the nature of things. This is according to the reading, ‘tad-darśanat’. Āndanda Giri prefers ‘tad-adarśanāt (?) – is not in evidence’. If the feeling inhered in the object, all should have felt it similarly and for ever. The reaction being different, the feeling is subjective.•].

प्रयोजनतृष्णया च प्रेर्यमाणस्य वाङ्मनःकायैः प्रवृत्तिदर्शनात्, ‘सोऽकामयत जाया मे स्यात्’ (BrhU.1.4.17) इत्यादिना पुत्रवित्तादि पाङ्क्तलक्षणं काम्यमेवेति ‘उभे ह्येते साध्यसाधनलक्षणे एषणे एव’ (BrhU.3.5.1) इति वाजसनेयिब्राह्मणेऽवधारणात्।
Moreover, it is noticed that one acts through speech, mind, and body when one is impelled by thirst for desired results; and by the text beginning with, ‘He desired, “Let me have a wife”’ (BrhUEng.1.4.17), and by the text, ‘Both these are but desires (for ends and means)’ (BrhUEng.3.5.1, 4.4.22), of the Vāja-saneyā Brāhmaṇa, it has been emphatically asserted that sons, wealth, etc., that constitute the fivefold karma
[•The metre called Paṅkti has five letters in each foot; and in sacrifices the five factors – wife, son, divine wealth (meditation), human wealth, and rites – get conjoined. Hence sacrifices are paṅkta, constituted by five factors.•]
are comprised within desire.

अविद्याकामदोषनिमित्ताया वाङ्मनःकायप्रवृत्तेः पाङ्क्तलक्षणाया विदुषोऽविद्यादिदोषाभावादनुपपत्तेः क्रियाभावमात्रं व्युत्थानम्, न तु यागादिवदनुष्ठेयरूपं भावात्मकम्।
Since the activities of speech, mind, and body with regard to the (fivefold) Veda rituals, arising from such defects as ignorance, desire, etc., cannot belong to a man of realization because of his freedom from the defects like ignorance etc., his renunciation consists in the mere absence of activity; and it is not a positive something to be accomplished like sacrifice etc.

तच्च विद्यावत्पुरुषधर्म इति न प्रयोजनमन्वेष्टव्यम्। न हि तमसि प्रवृत्तस्य उदित आलोके यद्गर्तपङ्ककण्टकाद्यपतनम्, तत्किंप्रयोजनमिति प्रश्नार्हम्।
And that being a natural accomplishment of a man of illumination, no need is to be sought for it. No such question can be raised as to the need because of which a person, who was (once) enveloped in darkness, does not fall into a pit, swamp, or brambles after the dawn of light.

व्युत्थानं तर्ह्यर्थप्राप्तत्वान्न चोदनार्थ इति। गार्हस्थ्ये चेत्परं ब्रह्मविज्ञानं जातम्, तत्रैवास्त्वकुर्वत आसनं न ततोऽन्यत्र गमनमिति चेत्,
Objection: Then it comes to this that renunciation follows as a matter of course and is not fit to be enjoined. Therefore, if the supreme knowledge of Brahman dawns in domestic life, the inactive
[•One who does not engage any more in scriptural rituals etc.•]
man may continue in that state, and there need be no moving away from it.

न; कामप्रयुक्तत्वाद्गार्हस्थ्यस्य। ‘एतावान्वै कामः’ (BrhU.1.4.17) ‘उभे ह्येते एषणे एव’ (BrhU.3.5.1, BrhU.4.4.22) इत्यवधारणात् कामनिमित्तपुत्रवित्तादिसम्बन्धनियमाभावमात्रम्; न हि ततोऽन्यत्र गमनं व्युत्थानमुच्यते। अतो न गार्हस्थ्य एवाकुर्वत आसनमुत्पन्नविद्यस्य।
Answer: No, since domestic life is induced by desire, for it has been clearly declared, ‘This much indeed is desire’ (BrhUEng.1.4.17)
[•The first part of the sentence is: ‘He desired, “Let me have a wife, so that I may be born (as a child). And let me have wealth, so that I may perform rites.”’•],
‘Both these [•Hankering for ends and means.•]
are indeed desires’ (BrhUEng.3.5.1, 4.4.22). Renunciation is defined as the mere absence of well-established relationship with sons etc. arising from desire, and not as the mere moving away from that domestic life. And so the inactive man of realization cannot continue in the domestic life itself.
[•He cannot consider himself a householder, nor can he deliberately put on the householder’s garb or accept the latter’s duties.•]

एतेन गुरुशुश्रूषातपसोरप्यप्रतिपत्तिर्विदुषः सिद्धा।
Hereby it is established that for an illumined soul there can be no acceptance of such duties as the service of the Guru, or (practice of) austerities.

अत्र केचिद्गृहस्था भिक्षाटनादिभयात्परिभवाच्च त्रस्यमानाः सूक्ष्मदृष्टितां दर्शयन्त उत्तरमाहुः।
भिक्षोरपि भिक्षाटनादिनियमदर्शनाद्देहधारणमात्रार्थिनो गृहस्थस्यापि साध्यसाधनैषणोभयविनिर्मुक्तस्य देहमात्रधारणार्थमशनाच्छादनमात्रमुपजीवतो गृह एवास्त्वासनमिति;
Against this argument, some householders, shy of begging alms and afraid of ridicule, advance the following rejoinder, thereby making a show of their intellectual acumen:
Inasmuch as a mendicant, desirous merely of maintaining his body, is seen to subject himself to regulations about begging, there can be continuance in the domestic life even for that householder who has become freed from both kinds of desires with regard to ends and means, but who has to depend on mere food and raiment for the maintenance of the body.

न, स्वगृहविशेषपरिग्रहनियमस्य कामप्रयुक्तत्वादित्युक्तोत्तरमेतत्। स्वगृहविशेषपरिग्रहाभावे च शरीरधारणमात्रप्रयुक्ताशनाच्छादनार्थिनः स्वपरिग्रहविशेषभावेऽर्थाद्भिक्षुकत्वमेव।
Answer: Not so, for this has already been refuted by saying that the constant habit of resorting to any particular house of one’s own is prompted by desire. When there is no clinging to any particular house of one’s own, there is follows begging alone, as a matter of course, in the case of one who has no special inclination for turning to his own and who seeks for food and raiment under the mere impulsion of maintaining the body.

शरीरधारणार्थायां भिक्षाटनादिप्रवृत्तौ यथा नियमो भिक्षोः शौचादौ च, तथा गृहिणोऽपि विदुषोऽकामिनोऽस्तु नित्यकर्मसु नियमेन प्रवृत्तिर्यावज्जीवादिश्रुतिनियुक्तत्वात्प्रत्यवायपरिहारायेति।
Objection: Just as (for a sannyāsī) there are regulations with regard to engagement in begging for the sake of maintaining the body, as also with regard to personal cleanliness etc., so in the case of the householder, who has become illumined and free from desire, there may be regular engagement in obligatory duties – for the sake of avoiding evil – in pursuance of the injunction implied in the Veda text enjoining karma for the whole life.

एतन्नियोगाविषयत्वेन विदुषः प्रत्युक्तमशक्यनियोज्यत्वाच्चेति।
Answer: This has already been refuted by pointing out that the illumined soul is outside the range of injunction; besides, he cannot be impelled.

यावज्जीवादिनित्यचोदनानर्थक्यमिति चेत्,
Objection: The injunction about obligatory duties contained in, ‘One should perform the Agnihotra sacrifice for life,’ becomes meaningless thereby.

न; अविद्वद्विषयत्वेनार्थवत्त्वात्। यत्तु भिक्षोः शरीरधारणमात्रप्रवृत्तस्य प्रवृत्तेर्नियतत्वम्, तत्प्रवृत्तेर्न प्रयोजकम्। आचमनप्रवृत्तस्य पिपासापगमवन्नान्यप्रयोजनार्थत्वमवगम्यते। न चाग्निहोत्रादीनां तद्वदर्थप्राप्तप्रवृत्तिनियतत्वोपपत्तिः।
Answer: No, because it retains its meaningfulness with regard to the ignorant man. As for the regulation about the activities of the mendicant engaged in the mere support of the body, that regulation does not generate any action. Just as no fresh motive is in evidence in the matter of quenching thirst (pari passu) for a man engaged in sipping water from the palm of the hand as a ceremonial act, similarly (in the matter of rules for begging) no other impulse is in evidence (apart from assuaging hunger)
[•Following the injunction about sipping, a man sips water and the thirst is assuaged pari passu; but the latter fact is not the motive for the sipping. Similarly, a man engages naturally in begging food for life, and consequent on that there occur some rules; but these rules cannot lead to a supposition of some fresh motive for the begging.•]
It cannot be argued on similar grounds that in the case of Agni-hotra, too, the activities are derived naturally and are regulated accordingly
[•For theses activities are not spontaneous, but follow from a desire for heaven etc.•].

अर्थप्राप्तप्रवृत्तिनियमोऽपि प्रयोजनाभावेऽनुपपन्न एवेति चेत्,
Objection: Restriction of even spontaneous activity is uncalled for when it serves no purpose.

न; तन्नियमस्य पूर्वप्रवृत्तिसिद्धत्वात्तदतिक्रमे यत्नगौरवादर्थप्राप्तस्य व्युत्थानस्य पुनर्वचनाद्विदुषो मुमुक्षोः कर्तव्यत्वोपपत्तिः।
Answer: No, since that restriction follows naturally out of past tendencies, and an overriding of them involves great effort
[•Life can be maintained by begging for alms, whether according to rules or not. But before the rise of knowledge, the mendicant had followed good rules as a spiritual discipline, and the habit persists even after illumination. The path of least resistance lies in following the habit and not in counteracting it.•].
From the fact that a fresh injunction of renunciation, despite its emergence as a matter of course (in the case of a man of illumination), is met with,
[•In BrhUEng.3.5.1 etc. – ‘Knowing this very self, the Brāhmaṇas renounce … and lead a mendicant life.’•]
it becomes evident that it is obligatory for the man of illumination.

अविदुषापि मुमुक्षुणा पारिव्राज्यं कर्तव्यमेव; तथा च ‘शान्तो दान्तः’ (BrhU.4.4.23) इत्यादिवचनं प्रमाणम्।
And monasticism is obligatory even for the unillumined soul that hankers after emancipation. With regard to this matter the sentence, ‘Therefore he who knows thus becomes self-controlled, calm,’ etc. (BrhUEng.4.4.23) can be cited as authoritative.

शमदमादीनां चात्मदर्शनसाधनानामन्याश्रमेष्वनुपपत्तेः।
Besides, such means for the realization of the Self as physical and mental control etc., are incompatible with other stages of life.

‘अत्याश्रमिभ्यः परमं पवित्रं प्रोवाच सम्यगृषिसंघजुष्टम्’ (SvetU.6.21) इति च श्वेताश्वतरे विज्ञायते। ‘न कर्मणा न प्रजया धनेन त्यागेनैके अमृतत्वमानशुः’ (KaivU.1.3) इति च कैवल्यश्रुतिः। ‘ज्ञात्वा नैष्कर्म्यमाचरेत्’ इति च स्मृतेः।
And it is known from the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, ‘To those (monks) who are above the (four) stages of life he spoke well of that supremely holy Reality that is sought after by seers of Truth’ (SvetU.6.21). And in the Kaivalya Upaniṣad (KaivU.1.3) there occurs this text, ‘Some attained immortality not by karma, not by progeny, not by wealth, but by renunciation.’
[•The idea is that the few who ever realized, did so through renunciation.•]
And the Smṛti says, ‘After attaining knowledge, one should have recourse to inactivity’, and ‘He should continue in that order of life (sannyāsa) which is conducive to the attainment of Brahman.’

‘ब्रह्माश्रमपदे वसेत्’ इति च ब्रह्मचर्यादिविद्यासाधनानां च साकल्येनात्याश्रमिषूपपत्तेर्गार्हस्थ्येऽसम्भवात्। न च असम्पन्नं साधनं कस्यचिदर्थस्य साधनायालम्।
Moreover, the practice of such disciplines as for enlightenment, continence, in their fullness is possible only for those who are above the four stages of life, whereas it is impossible in domestic life. Not that an incomplete means can fulfil any objective (e.g. the realization of the Self).

यद्विज्ञानोपयोगीनि च गार्हस्थ्याश्रमकर्माणि, तेषां परमफलमुपसंहृतं देवताप्ययलक्षणं संसारविषयमेव।
As for the kind of realization to which the karmas pertaining to the householder’s life can lead, their highest result has been summed up as merger in the Deity (Hiraṇya-garbha), and that is within the worldly state itself.

यदि कर्मिण एव परमात्मविज्ञानमभविष्यत्, संसारविषयस्यैव फलस्योपसंहारो नोपापत्स्यत।
If the knowledge of the Self were possible for people engrossed only in karma, the conclusion there would not have been made with a result, (viz merger in the Deity), which is within the worldly state.

अङ्गफलं तदिति चेत्;
Objection: That is only the product of some subsidiary factor (associated with the higher knowledge
[•E.g. the knowledge of Fire and other deities associated with the realization of the Self.•]).

न, तद्विरोध्यात्मवस्तुविषयत्वादात्मविद्यायाः। निराकृतसर्वनामरूपकर्मपरमार्थात्मवस्तुविषयमात्मज्ञानममृतत्वसाधनम्। गुणफलसम्बन्धे हि निराकृतसर्वविशेषात्मवस्तुविषयत्वं ज्ञानस्य न प्राप्नोति; तच्चानिष्टम्, ‘यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्’ (BrhU.2.4.14) इत्यधिकृत्य क्रियाकारकफलादिसर्वव्यवहारनिराकरणाद्विदुषः; तद्विपरीतस्याविदुषः ‘यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति’ (BrhU.2.4.14) इत्युक्त्वा क्रियाकारकफलरूपस्य संसारस्य दर्शितत्वाच्च वाजसनेयिब्राह्मणे। तथेहापि देवताप्ययं संसारविषयं यत्फलमशनायादिमद्वस्त्वात्मकं तदुपसंहृत्य केवलं सर्वात्मकवस्तुविषयं ज्ञानममृतत्वाय वक्ष्यामीति प्रवर्तते।
Answer: No, for the knowledge of the Self relates to the Reality which is the Self, and which is entirely opposed to it (viz the subsidiary). The means to the attainment of immortality is the knowledge of the Self which is the supreme Reality beyond all names, forms, and actions. If that knowledge remains associated with some secondary result (within the world), it cannot pertain to the Reality that is the Self from which are ruled out all distinctions. And that is undesirable, for in the text of the Vāja-saneyā Brāhmaṇa, beginning with ‘Where everything becomes his Self’ (BrhUEng.2.4.14), all empirical dealings, involving actions, auxiliaries, and fruits have been denied for the illumined soul; and by saying, ‘Where there is an appearance of duality’ (BrhUEng.2.4.14), the worldly state comprised of actions, auxiliaries, and fruits has been shown in the case of the unillumined soul who is the opposite of the former. Similarly, here, too, the text thinks, ‘I shall speak of that absolute knowledge of the all-pervasive Reality that leads to immortality after I have dealt with the fruit that consists in the identity with the Deity, exists within the worldly state, and is constituted by things subject to hunger etc.’

ऋणप्रतिबन्धश्चाविदुष एव मनुष्यपितृदेवलोकप्राप्तिं प्रति, न विदुषः; ‘सोऽयं मनुष्यलोकः पुत्रेणैव’ (BrhU.1.5.16) इत्यादिलोकत्रयसाधननियमश्रुतेः। विदुषश्च ऋणप्रतिबन्धाभावो दर्शित आत्मलोकार्थिनः ‘किं प्रजया करिष्यामः’ (BrhU.4.4.22) इत्यादिना। तथा ‘एतद्ध स्म वै तद्विद्वांस आहुर्ऋषयः कावषेयाः’ इत्यादि ‘एतद्ध स्म वै तत्पूर्वे विद्वांसोऽग्निहोत्रं न जुहवांचक्रुः’ (कौ. उ. २-५) इति च कौषीतकिनाम्।
For the unenlightened man, again, and not the enlightened one, do the three debts act as impediments in the way to his attaining the worlds of men, manes, and gods, as it is established by the Veda text, ‘That world of men is to be conquered through the son alone’ etc. (BrhUEng.1.5.16)
[•… the world of manes through rites; and the world of the gods through meditation.’•],
which determines the means for the attainment of the three worlds. And for the man of illumination craving for the world of the Self, the absence of impediment from debts is (BrhUEng.4.4.22). So also there are the texts of the Kauśītakī branch. ‘So the ancient seers, the Kāvaṣeyas, who had realized It said, (“Why should we study the Vedas?”)’ (Kau. II. 5) and ‘The ancient illumined souls who knew It, did not perform the Agni-hotra sacrifice’ (ibid).

अविदुषस्तर्हि ऋणानपाकरणे पारिव्राज्यानुपपत्तिरिति चेत्;
Objection: For the unillumined soul, then, there can be no monasticism before he clears the (three) debts.

न, प्राग्गार्हस्थ्यप्रतिपत्तेर्‌ऋणित्वासम्भवादधिकारानारूढोऽपि ऋणी चेत्स्यात्, सर्वस्य ऋणित्वमित्यनिष्टं प्रसज्येत।
Answer: Not so, because one does not become indebted before entering the householder’s life. If one can become indebted irrespective of his obligation thereto, then all may as well become so, which (conclusion) will lead to undesirable consequences.

प्रतिपन्नगार्हस्थ्यस्यापि ‘गृहाद्वनी भूत्वा प्रव्रजेद्यदि वेतरथा ब्रह्मचर्यादेव प्रव्रर्जेद्गृहाद्वा वनाद्वा’ (जा. उ. ४) इत्यात्मदर्शनसाधनोपायत्वेनेष्यत एव पारिव्राज्यम्। यावज्जीवादिश्रुतीनामविद्वदमुमुक्षुविषये कृतार्थता। छान्दोग्ये च केषांचिद्द्वादशरात्रमग्निहोत्रं हुत्वा तत ऊर्ध्वं परित्यागः श्रूयते।
In accordance with the text, ‘From the domestic life he should resort to that of the forest-dweller (recluse), and then embrace monasticism; alternatively, one may embrace monasticism from the stage of the celibate, or the householder, or the recluse’ (Ja. 4), even for one who has embraced the householder’s life, monasticism is desirable as a disciplinary means for the realization of the Self. The Veda texts speaking of performance of rites throughout life find their scope among the unenlightened souls who do not long for freedom. In (some recensions of) the Chāndogya, too, it is found that for some people it is enjoined that the Agni-hotra sacrifice can be given up after performing it for twelve nights.

यत्त्वनधिकृतानां पारिव्राज्यमिति, तन्न; तेषां पृथगेव ‘उत्सन्नाग्निरनग्निको वा’ इत्यादिश्रवणात्;
As for the view that monasticism is meant for those who are disqualified (from performing karma), it is unsound, since with regard to them (the monks) an independent injunction occurs in, ‘He whose fire has been extinguished or who has not lighted it up (shall renounce the day he becomes desireless)’ (Np. III. 77).

सर्वस्मृतिषु च अविशेषेण आश्रमविकल्पः प्रसिद्धः, समुच्चयश्च।
Moreover, it as a well-known fact that all the Smṛtis, in a general way, enjoin option with regard to, as well as adoption (in succession) of, all the stages of life.

यत्तु विदुषोऽर्थप्राप्तं व्युत्थानमित्यशास्त्रार्थत्वे, गृहे वने वा तिष्ठतो न विशेष इति, तदसत्। व्युत्थानस्यैवार्थप्राप्तत्वान्नान्यत्रावस्थानं स्यात्।
As for the argument, ‘Inasmuch as renunciation ensues spontaneously in the case of the illumined soul, it is beyond the purview of the scriptures, and therefore it makes little difference as to whether he continues in domestic life or repairs to the forest’, it is unsound, for absolute renunciation being a spontaneous result, there can be no continuance in any other order.

अन्यत्रावस्थानस्य कामकर्मप्रयुक्तत्वं ह्यवोचाम; तदभावमात्रं व्युत्थानमिति च। यथाकामित्वं तु विदुषोऽत्यन्तमप्राप्तम्, अत्यन्तमूढविषयत्वेनावगमात्।
We pointed out that involvement in any other stage of life is a result of the action of desire, and that renunciation consists merely in the absence of this. As for unchecked behaviour in the case of the illumined soul, it is entirely out of place, it being found among the extremely ignorant.

तथा शास्त्रचोदितमपि कर्मात्मविदोऽप्राप्तं गुरुभारतयावगम्यते; किमुत अत्यन्ताविवेकनिमित्तं यथाकामित्वम्? न ह्युन्मादतिमिरदृष्ट्युपलब्धं वस्तु तदपगमेऽपि तथैव स्यात्, उन्मादतिमिरदृष्टिनिमित्तत्वादेव तस्य। तस्मादात्मविदो व्युत्थानव्यतिरेकेण न यथाकामित्वम्, न चान्यत्कर्तव्यमित्येतत्सिद्धम्।
Moreover, seeing that even scriptural duties are known to be inapplicable in the case of the knower of the Self, they being too burdensome, can he have unrestrained behaviour that arises from extreme non-discrimination? Not that a thing perceived under lunacy or through eyes affected by the Timira disease, continues to be exactly so when the disease is cured, that vision being contingent on lunacy or Timira. According, it is proved that for the knower of the Self there can be neither wantonness nor engagement in any other duty apart from renunciation.

यत्तु ‘विद्यां चाविद्यां च यस्तद्वेदोभयं सह’ (IsU.11) इति न विद्यावतो विद्यया सहाविद्यापि वर्तत इत्ययमर्थः; कस्तर्हि? एकस्मिन्पुरुषे एते न सह सम्बध्येयातामित्यर्थः; यथा शुक्तिकायां रजतशुक्तिकाज्ञाने एकस्य पुरुषस्य।
As for the text, ‘He who knows these two, vidyā and a-vidyā, together’ (IsU.11), it does not convey the idea that ignorance, too, persists along with enlightenment for the man of knowledge. What is the meaning then? It is meant to imply that they cannot cohere in the same person at the same time, as for instance the ideas of silver and nacre cannot cohere in a person with regard to the same mother of pearl.

‘दूरमेते विपरीते विषूची अविद्या या च विद्येति ज्ञाता’ (KathU.1.2.4) इति हि काठके।
For it is said in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad, ‘That which is known as vidyā (knowledge) and that which is known as a-vidyā (rites, duties, etc.) are widely contradictory, and they follow divergent courses’ (KathU.1.2.4). Hence there is no possibility of the continuance of ignorance when knowledge dawns.

तस्मान्न विद्यायां सत्यामविद्यायाः सम्भवोऽस्ति। ‘तपसा ब्रह्म विजिज्ञासस्व’ (TaitU.3.2.2) इत्यादिश्रुतेः। तपआदि विद्योत्पत्तिसाधनं गुरूपासनादि च कर्म अविद्यात्मकत्वादविद्योच्यते। तेन विद्यामुत्पाद्य मृत्युं काममतितरति। ततो निष्कामस्त्यक्तैषणो ब्रह्मविद्यया अमृतत्वमश्नुत इत्येतमर्थं दर्शनयन्नाह – ‘अविद्यया मृत्युं तीर्त्वा विद्ययामृतमश्नुते’ (IsU.11) इति।
From such Veda texts as ‘Crave to know Brahman through concentration’ (TaitU.3.2.2), it follows that concentration etc. that are conducive to the rise of knowledge, as well as activities like service of the teacher, are called a-vidyā (nescience), since they are the products of nescience. Producing vidyā (knowledge) through them, one transcends death that is the same as desire. Then the passionless man renounces all desires and achieves immortality through the knowledge of Brahman. In order to reveal this idea the (Īśā) Upaniṣad says, ‘Crossing over death through a-vidyā, one attains immortality through vidyā’ (IsU.11).

यत्तु पुरुषायुः सर्वं कर्मणैव व्याप्तम्, ‘कुर्वन्नेवेह कर्माणि जिजीविषेच्छतं समाः’ (IsU.2) इति, तदविद्वद्विषयत्वेन परिहृतम्, इतरथा असम्भवात्।
As for the view that the entire span of a man’s life is packed with karma according to the text, ‘By doing karma indeed should one wish to live here for a hundred years’ (IsU.2), that has been dismissed as relating to the ignorant, for otherwise it would be untenable.

यत्तु वक्ष्यमाणमपि पूर्वोक्ततुल्यत्वात्कर्मणा अविरुद्धमात्मज्ञानमिति, तत्सविशेषनिर्विशेषात्मविषयतया प्रत्युक्तम्; उत्तरत्र व्याख्याने च दर्शयिष्यामः।
And the argument was advanced that what follows (in the present Upaniṣad) is in line with what preceded it, and therefore the knowledge of the Self is not opposed to karma. This view was disposed of by relating the two standpoints to the conditioned and the unconditioned Self, and this will be shown by us in the succeeding explanation.

अतः केवलनिष्क्रियब्रह्मात्मैकत्वविद्याप्रदर्शनार्थमुत्तरो ग्रन्थ आरभ्यते॥

Therefore the following text is commenced in order to reveal the knowledge of the oneness of the Self and the absolute, actionless Brahman:

Go to Top ('Home' key on many Windows browsers)

The cosmology

mn.01 mn.02 mn.03 mn.04

❚❚

Ātman (the self) indeed, one only (eka), was all this in the beginning. There was nothing else blinking (active). That one envisioned, “I now create (sṛjai = sṛje) the worlds.”
Ātman (the self) indeed, one only (eka), was all this in the beginning (आत्मा वै इदम् एकः एव अग्रे आसीत्). There was nothing else blinking (न अन्यद् किञ्चन मिषत्). That one envisioned, “I now create (sṛjai = sṛje) the worlds” (सः ईक्षत लोकान् नु सृजै इति).
आत्मेति। आत्मा आप्नोतेरत्तेरततेर्वा परः सर्वज्ञः सर्वशक्तिरशनायादिसर्वसंसारधर्मवर्जितो नित्यत्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावोऽजोऽजरोऽमरोऽमृतोऽभयोऽद्वयो वै
Ātmā vai, the absolute
[•Vai is used to present the absolute by way of ruling out the conditioned.•]
Self. The word ātmā, Self, is derived in the sense of comprehending, engulfing, or pervading, and by it is signified one that is the highest, omniscient, omnipotent, and devoid of all such worldly attributes as hunger; by nature eternal, pure, conscious, and free; birthless, undecaying, immortal, deathless, fearless, and without a second.

इदं यदुक्तं नामरूपकर्मभेदभिन्नं जगत् आत्मा एव एकः अग्रे जगतः सृष्टेः प्राक् आसीत्
Idam, this – all that has been referred to as this world, diversified through the differences of name, form, and action; āsīt, was; agre, in the beginning, before the creation of this world; ātmā ekaḥ eva, but the one Self.

किं नेदानीं स एवैकः?
Objection: Has It ceased to be the same one entity?

न।
Answer: No.

कथं तर्हि आसीदित्युच्यते?
Objection: Why is it then said, ‘It was (āsīt)’?

यद्यपीदानीं स एवैकः, तथाप्यस्ति विशेषः।
Answer: Though even now that very same single entity endures, still there is some distinction. The distinction is this:

प्रागुत्पत्तेः अव्याकृतनामरूपभेदमात्मभूतमात्मैकशब्दप्रत्ययगोचरं जगत् इदानीं व्याकृतनामरूपभेदत्वादनेकशब्दप्रत्ययगोचरम् आत्मैकशब्दप्रत्ययगोचरं चेति विशेषः।
The universe in which the differences of name (nāma) and form (rūpa) were not manifest before creation, which was then one with the Self, and which was denotable by the single word and idea ‘Self’, has now become denotable by many words and concepts as well as by the single word and concept ‘Self’, because of its diversification through the multiplicity of names and forms.

यथा सलिलात्पृथक् फेननामरूपव्याकरणात्प्राक्सलिलैकशब्दप्रत्ययगोचरमेव फेनम्, यदा सलिलात्पृथङ् नामरूपभेदेन व्याकृतं भवति, तदा सलिलं फेनं चेति अनेकशब्दप्रत्ययभाक् सलिलमेवेति चैकशब्दप्रत्ययभाक्च फेनं भवति, तद्वत्।
Foam is denoted by the single word and concept ‘water’, before the manifestation of names and forms distinct from water; but when that foam becomes manifested as (an entity) distinct from water, owing to the difference of name and form, then the very same foam becomes denotable by many words and concepts, viz. foam and water, as well as by only one word and one concept, viz. water. The same is the case here.

न अन्यत्किञ्चन न किञ्चिदपि मिषत् निमिषद्व्यापारवदितरद्वा। यथा साङ्‍ख्यानामनात्मपक्षपाति स्वतन्त्रं प्रधानम्, यथा च काणादानामणवः, न तद्वदिहान्यदात्मनः किञ्चिदपि वस्तु विद्यते।
Na anyat kiñcana, there was nothing else whatsoever; miṣat, winking, that was active or tractive. Unlike the Pradhāna of the Sāṅkhyas, which is an independent entity and not of the same class as the selves, and unlike the atoms of the followers of Kaṇāda, there remained here nothing whatsoever apart from the Self.

किं तर्हि? आत्मैवैक आसीदित्यभिप्रायः। सः सर्वज्ञस्वाभाव्यात् आत्मा एक एव सन् ईक्षत
What (existed) then? The Self alone existed. This is the idea. Saḥ, that Self; being naturally omniscient, īkṣata, thought; even though It was but one.

ननु प्रागुत्पत्तेरकार्यकरणत्वात्कथमीक्षितवान्?
Objection: Since the Self was devoid of body and senses, how could It think before creation?

नायं दोषः, सर्वज्ञस्वाभाव्यात्। तथा च मन्त्रवर्णः – ‘अपाणिपादो जवनो ग्रहीता’ (SvetU.3.19) इत्यादिः। केनाभिप्रायेणेत्याह – लोकान् अम्भःप्रभृतीन्प्राणिकर्मफलोपभोगस्थानभूतान् नु सृजै सृजेऽहम् इति

Answer: This is no fault, because of Its nature of omniscience, in support of which fact is the mantra text, ‘Without hands and feet He goes and grasps’ etc. (SvetU.3.19). With what motive (did He think)? The answer is: sṛjai, let Me create; lokān nu, the worlds – (viz) ambhas iti (space) etc., which are the places for the enjoyment of the fruits of work done by creatures.


❚❚

That (ātman) manifested (itself) as these worlds (lokas): ambhas, marīcīḥ, mara, and āpaḥ.
What is above (pareṇa) the heavens is called that ambhas (the Milky Way cloud above the solar luminaries). Heaven is its support (pratiṣṭhā, base). (Below) that is the intermediate space called marīcis (the rays, the area where the rays of solar luminaries shine down). This (surface of the) earth is called mara (where death presides). Below (adhastāt) is that which is called āpas (the waters, the water world).
That (ātman) manifested (itself) as these worlds (lokas) (सः इमान् लोकान् असृजत): ambhas, marīcis, mara, and āpaḥ (अम्भस् मरीचीः मरम् आपः).
What is above (pareṇa) the heavens is called that ambhas (the Milky Way cloud) (अदः अम्भः परेण दिवं). Heaven is its support (base) (द्यौः प्रतिष्ठा). (Below) that is the intermediate space called marīcis (the area of the solar luminaries’ rays) (अन्तर्-इक्षं मरीचयः). This (surface of the) earth is called mara (where death presides) (पृथिवी मरः). Below (adhastāt) is that which is called āpas (the deep waters) (याः अधस्तात् ताः आपः).
एवमीक्षित्वा आलोच्य
Having visualized, i.e. deliberated, thus,

सः आत्मा इमान् लोकान् असृजत सृष्टवान्। यथेह बुद्धिमांस्तक्षादिः एवंप्रकारान्प्रासादादीन्सृजे इतीक्षित्वा ईक्षानन्तरं प्रासादादीन्सृजति, तद्वत्।
Saḥ, that Self; asṛjata, created; imān lokān, these worlds; just as in the world an intelligent architect or others think, ‘I shall construct a palace etc. according to this plan’, and build up the palace etc. after that deliberation.

ननु सोपादानस्तक्षादिः प्रासादादीन्सृजतीति युक्तम्; निरुपादानस्त्वात्मा कथं लोकान्सृजतीति?
Objection: It is a logical that architects and others, possessed of materials, should raise up palaces etc. But how can the Self, devoid of materials, create the worlds?

नैष दोषः। सलिलफेनस्थानीये आत्मभूते नामरूपे अव्याकृते आत्मैकशब्दवाच्ये व्याकृतफेनस्थानीयस्य जगतः उपादानभूते सम्भवतः।
Answer: This is nothing wrong. Name and form – which remain identified with the Self in their unmanifested state just like the (undiversified) foam with water, and are hence denotable by the word ‘Self’ – can become the material cause of the universe, as water becomes that of the manifested foam.

तस्मादात्मभूतनामरूपोपादानभूतः सन् सर्वज्ञो जगन्निर्मिमीते इत्यविरुद्धम्।
Therefore, there is nothing incongruous in saying that the omniscient Being creates the universe by virtue of Its oneness with the materials – viz. name and form – which are identified with Itself.

अथवा, विज्ञानवान्यथा मायावी निरुपादानः आत्मानमेव आत्मान्तरत्वेन आकाशेन गच्छन्तमिव निर्मिमीते, तथा सर्वज्ञो देवः सर्वशक्तिर्महामायः आत्मानमेव आत्मान्तरत्वेन जगद्रूपेण निर्मिमीते इति युक्ततरम्।
Or the more reasonable position is this: Just as an intelligent juggler (māyāvī, magician), who has no material, transforms himself, as it were, into a second self ascending into space, similarly the omniscient and omnipotent Deity, who is a supreme magician, creates Himself as another in the form of the universe.

एवं च सति कार्यकारणोभयासद्वाद्यादिपक्षाश्च न प्रसज्जन्ते, सुनिराकृताश्च भवन्ति।
On this view, the schools that hold such beliefs as the unreality of both cause and effect have no legs to stand on and are totally demolished.

कान् लोकानसृजतेत्याह – अम्भो मरीचीः मरम् आपः इति। आकाशादिक्रमेण अण्डमुत्पाद्य अम्भःप्रभृतीन् लोकानसृजत।
Which are the worlds that He created? They are being enumerated: Ambhas, marīcīḥ, maram, āpaḥ. Starting with space, he created in due order the cosmic egg (aṇḍa), and then created the worlds – ambhas etc.

तत्र अम्भःप्रभृतीन्स्वयमेव व्याचष्टे श्रुतिः। अदः तत् अम्भः-शब्दवाच्यो लोकः, परेण दिवं द्युलोकात्परेण परस्तात्, सोऽम्भःशब्दवाच्यः, अम्भोभरणात्। द्यौः प्रतिष्ठा आश्रयः तस्याम्भसो लोकस्य।
As for these, the Upaniṣad itself explains the words ambhas etc. Adaḥ, that one – the world that is there; pareṇa divam, beyond heaven; is ambhas, is denoted by the word ambhas. It is called ambhas because it holds ambhas, water (cloud). Of that world, viz. ambhas, dyauḥ pratiṣṭhā, heaven is the support.

द्युलोकादधस्तात् अन्तरिक्षं यत्, तत् मरीचयः। एकोऽपि अनेकस्थानभेदत्वाद्बहुवचनभाक् – मरीचय इति; मरीचिभिर्वा रश्मिभिः सम्बन्धात्।
Antar-ikṣam, the sky, which is there below heaven, is the (world called) marīci (lit. sun-rays). Though this (last) world is one, it is used in the plural number as marīcīḥ (or rather marīcayaḥ) because of the diversity of the space covered by it. Or it is so used because of its association with the marīcayaḥ, rays (of the sun).

पृथिवी मरः – म्रियन्ते अस्मिन् भूतानीति।
Pṛthivī, the earth, is maraḥ since beings die (mriyante) on it.

याः अधस्तात् पृथिव्याः, ताः आपः उच्यन्ते, आप्नोतेः, लोकाः।
Yaḥ adhastāt, the worlds that are below – below the earth (surface); tāḥ, they (are); āpaḥ, called āpaḥ, (lit. waters – ground waters and the oceans) the word being derived (from the root āp) in the sense of being attained
[•Attained by the denizens of the nether worlds.•].

यद्यपि पञ्चभूतात्मकत्वं लोकानाम्, तथापि अब्बाहुल्यात् अब्नामभिरेव अम्भो मरीचीर्मरमापः इत्युच्यन्ते॥

Though the worlds are constituted by the five elements, still, because of the predominance of water (etc. in them), they are referred to, by the synonyms of water (etc.) as ambhas, marīcīḥ, maram, āpaḥ.


❚❚

The ātman thought, “Now, there are these worlds. Now, I manifest (sṛjai = sṛje) the protectors of these worlds.” (The ātman) gathered up from the water world and shaped (amūrchayat) a human form (puruṣa, Virāṭ the manifest cosmic Person).
The ātman thought (सः ईक्षत), “Now, there are these worlds (इमे नु लोकाः). Now, I manifest the protectors of these worlds” (लोक-पालान् नु सृजै इति). (The ātman) gathered up from the water world and shaped a human form (puruṣa, Virāṭ the manifest cosmic Person) (सः अद्भ्यः एव पुरुषं समुद्धृत्य अमूर्छयत्).
सर्वप्राणिकर्मफलोपादानाधिष्ठानभूतांश्चतुरो लोकान्सृष्ट्वा सः ईश्वरः पुनरेव ईक्षतइमे नु तु अम्भःप्रभृतयः मया सृष्टा लोकाः परिपालयितृवर्जिता विनश्येयुः; तस्मादेषां रक्षणार्थं लोकपालान् लोकानां पालयितॄन् नु सृजै सृजेऽहम् इति
Having created the four worlds that provide support for the fruits of action as well as the materials for those fruits
[•And the accessories for achieving those fruits.•]
of all creatures, saḥ, He, God; īkṣata, deliberated; again iti, thus: ‘Ime nu lokāḥ, these then are the worlds, viz. ambhas etc., created by Me, which will perish if they are devoid of protectors. According, for their preservation, nu sṛjai, let Me create; loka-pālān, the protectors of the worlds.’

एवमीक्षित्वा सः अद्भ्य एव अप्प्रधानेभ्य एव पञ्चभूतेभ्यः, येभ्योऽम्भःप्रभृतीन्सृष्टवान्, तेभ्य एवेत्यर्थः, पुरुषं पुरुषाकारं शिरःपाण्यादिमन्तं समुद्धृत्य अद्भ्यः समुपादाय, मृत्पिण्डमिव कुलालः पृथिव्याः, अमूर्छयत् मूर्छितवान्, संपिण्डितवान्स्वावयवसंयोजनेनेत्यर्थः॥

After deliberating thus, saḥ, He; samuddhṛtya, having gathered up; puruṣam, a human form, possessed of head, hands, etc.; adbhyaḥ eva, from the water, itself – from the five elements in which water predominated, and from which He had created (the worlds, viz) ambhas etc. – just as a potter gathers up a lump of clay from the earth; amūrchayat, (He) gave shape to it – that is to say, fashioned it by endowing it with limbs [•He created Virāṭ•].


❚❚

That (ātman) did tapas on (envisioned, MunU.1.1.8, TaitU.2.6.1) that (cosmic human form). The mouth of that envisioned form opened, like an egg. From that mouth emerged speech (vāc). From speech (language, from names) emerged the deity Fire (Agni, the earliest deity of the perceptible elements, space-wind-fire-water-earth, dimension-movement-heat-fluidity-solidity).
The nostrils opened. From the nostrils emerged breath (prāṇa, along with the sense of smell). From prāṇa emerged the deity Air (Vāyu).
The eyes opened. From these eyes emerged sight. From sight emerged the deity Sun (Āditya).
The ears opened. From the ears emerged hearing. From hearing emerged the Directions (Diś).
The skin (tvac) opened. From skin emerged hairs (lomans). From the hairs emerged the deity Plants (Oṣadhis) and the deity Trees (Vanas-patis).
The heart (hṛdaya) opened. From the heart emerged mind (manas). From the mind emerged the deity Moon Candramas (who waxes and wanes).
The navel opened. From the navel emerged apāna (the downward life energy). From apāna emerged Death (Mṛtyu).
The penis (śiśna) opened. From the penis emerged the semen (retas, the means for future procreation). From the semen emerged the deity Waters (Āpaḥ).
(Full circle, originally from the waters to releasing back the waters. In the process, is originated the organs and the presiding deities of the organs, and the protectors of these worlds, all from the limbs of Virāṭ.)
That (ātman) did tapas on (envisioned) that (cosmic human form) (तम् अभ्यतपत्).
The mouth of that envisioned form opened, like an egg (तस्य अभितप्तस्य मुखं निरभिद्यत यथा अण्डम्). From that mouth emerged speech (vāc) (मुखात् वाच्). From speech (language, from names) emerged the deity Fire (Agni, the earliest deity of the perceptible elements) (वाचः अग्निः).
The nostrils opened (नासिके निरभिद्येताम्). From the nostrils emerged breath (prāṇa, along with the sense of smell) (नासिकाभ्यां प्राणः). From prāṇa emerged the deity Air (Vāyu) (प्राणात् वायुः ).
The eyes opened (अक्षिणी निरभिद्येताम्). From these eyes emerged sight (अक्षिभ्यां चक्षुः). From sight emerged the deity Sun (Āditya) (चक्षुषः आदित्यः).
The ears opened (कर्णौ निरभिद्येताम्). From the ears emerged hearing (कर्णाभ्यां श्रोत्रम्). From hearing emerged the Directions (Diś, Space) (श्रोत्रात् दिशः).
The skin (tvac) opened (त्वच् निरभिद्यत). From skin emerged hairs (lomans) (त्वचः लोमानि). From the hairs emerged the deity Plants (Oṣadhis) and the deity Trees (Vanas-patis) (लोमभ्यः ओषधि-वनस्-पतयः).
The heart (hṛdaya) opened (हृदयं निरभिद्यत). From the heart emerged mind (manas) (हृदयात् मनस्). From the mind emerged the deity Moon Candramas (मनसः चन्द्रमा).
The navel opened (नाभिः निरभिद्यत). From the navel emerged apāna (the downward life energy) (नाभ्याः अपानः). From apāna emerged Death (Mṛtyu) (अपानात् मृत्युः).
The penis opened (शिश्नं निरभिद्यत). From the penis emerged the semen (retas, the means for future procreation) (शिश्नात् रेतस्). From the semen emerged the deity Waters (Āpaḥ) (रेतसः आपः).
तं पिण्डं पुरुषविधमुद्दिश्य अभ्यतपत्, तदभिध्यानं सङ्कल्पं कृतवानित्यर्थः, ‘यस्य ज्ञानमयं तपः’ (MunU.1.1.9) इत्यादिश्रुतेः।
Tam, with regard to Him, (Virāṭ of) that human form; He abhyatapat, undertook tapas (lit. austerity), i.e. He deliberated over, or resolved about, Him; for a Veda text says, ‘Whose tapas is constituted by knowledge’ (MunU.1.1.9).

तस्य अभितप्तस्य ईश्वरसङ्कल्पेन तपसाभितप्तस्य पिण्डस्य मुखं निरभिद्यत मुखाकारं सुषिरमजायत; यथा पक्षिणः अण्डं निर्भिद्यते एवम्।
Tasya abhitaptasya, of that (Virāṭ), of the lump (that was Virāṭ’s body), when subjected to the tapas or resolution of God; mukham nirabhidyata, the mouth parted – a hole in the shape of the mouth emerged, just as the bird’s egg bursts.

तस्माच्च निर्भिण्णात् मुखात् वाक् करणमिन्द्रियं निरवर्तत; तदधिष्ठाता अग्निः, ततो वाचः, लोकपालः।
Mukhāt, from that mouth emerged, which had parted; was brought into existence vāk, the organ of speech; vācaḥ, from that vāk; was produced agniḥ, Fire, (the deity) that presides over vāk and is a regional protector (loka-pāla).

तथा नासिके निरभिद्येताम्नासिकाभ्यां प्राणः, प्राणाद्वायुः; इति सर्वत्राधिष्ठानं करणं देवता च – त्रयं क्रमेण निर्भिण्णमिति।
Similarly nāsike nirabhidyetām, the nostrils parted; nāsikābhyām prāṇaḥ, from the nostrils emerged the sense of smell (The sense of smell together with Prāṇa); prāṇāt vāyuḥ, from the sense of smell was formed Vāyu, Air. Thus, in all cases, the seat of the organs (adhiṣṭhāna), the organ (karaṇa), and the deity (devatā) – these, three emerged in succession.

अक्षिणी, कर्णौ, त्वक्, हृदयम् अन्तःकरणाधिष्ठानम्, मनः अन्तःकरणम्; नाभिः सर्वप्राणबन्धनस्थानम्।
Akṣiṇī, the two eyes; karṇau, the two orifices of the ears; tvak, skin – (all these which are the seats of the organs), (and) hṛdayam, heart (which is the) seat of the internal organ; manaḥ, mind, the internal organ; nābhiḥ, the navel (i.e. the root of the anus [•See A.G•]), which is the focal point of the vital forces.

अपानसंयुक्तत्वात् अपान इति पाय्विन्द्रियमुच्यते; तस्मात् तस्याधिष्ठात्री देवता मृत्युः
The organ of ejection (seated at the anus) is called apānaḥ, because of its association with Apāna (the vital force that moves down). From that originated its presiding deity mṛtyuḥ, Death.

यथा अन्यत्र, तथा शिश्नं निरभिद्यत प्रजननेन्द्रियस्थानम्। इन्द्रियं रेतः रेतोविसर्गार्थत्वात्सह रेतसोच्यते। रेतस आपः इति॥

As in the other cases, so śiśnam, the seat of the organ of generation was formed. Its organ is retas, semen – the organ, meant for discharging semen being called semen from the fact of its association with semen. Retasaḥ, from semen (i.e. the procreative organ) emerged (its deity) āpaḥ, Water.

Go to Top ('Home' key on many Windows browsers)

mn.01 mn.02 mn.03 mn.04 mn.05

❚❚

These deities (Agni, Vāyu, etcetera) that have been manifested (then) fell (prāpatan) back into this vast ocean (arṇava, the world of the Water deity).
(The ātman, manifester, as though) afflicted (with this ocean of saṃsāra) Him (Virāṭ and thus the deities) to hunger (aśanāyā) and thirst (pipāsā). They (the devatās) pleaded to this one (the ātman), “Give us a (physical) abode (āyatana) in which we may (be able to) eat food (anna, the objects for the senses and organs and their deities to feed upon).”
These deities (Agni, Vāyu, etcetera) that have been manifested (ताः एताः देवताः सृष्टाः) (then) fell back into this vast ocean (arṇava, the water world) (अस्मिन् महति अर्णवे प्रापतन्).
(The ātman, manifester, as though) afflicted Him (Virāṭ and thus the deities) to hunger (aśanāyā) and thirst (pipāsā) (तम् अशनाया-पिपासाभ्याम् अन्ववार्जत्). They (the devatās) pleaded to this one (the ātman) (ताः एनम् अब्रुवन्), “Give us an abode (āyatana) (आयतनं नः प्रजानीहि) in which we may (be able to) eat food” (यस्मिन् प्रतिष्ठिताः अन्नम् अदाम इति).
ता एता अग्न्यादयो देवताः लोकपालत्वेन सङ्कल्प्य सृष्टा ईश्वरेण अस्मिन् संसार-अर्णवे संसारसमुद्रे महति
Tāḥ etāḥ devatāḥ, these deities – Fire and others; sṛṣṭāḥ, that had been created as the rulers of the regions, by God after deliberation; (fell) asmin, into this; mahati arṇave, vast ocean –

अविद्याकामकर्मप्रभवदुःखोदके तीव्ररोगजरामृत्युमहाग्राहे अनादौ अनन्ते अपारे निरालम्बे विषयेन्द्रियजनितसुखलवलक्षणविश्रामे पञ्चेन्द्रियार्थतृण्मारुतविक्षोभोत्थितानर्थशतमहोर्मौ महारौरवाद्यनेकनिरयगतहाहेत्यादिकूजिताक्रोशनोद्भूतमहारवे
The world which is like a vast ocean, that is filled with the water of sorrow arising from ignorance, desire, and action; that is infested with huge sea-animals in the form of acute disease, and age, and death; that has no beginning, end, and limit, and provides on resting place; that affords only momentary respite through the little joys arising from the contact of senses and objects; that is full of the high waves in the shape of hundreds of evils, stirred up by the gale of hankering for the objects of the five senses; that resounds with the noise of cries and shrieks of ‘alas! alas!’ etc., issuing from the beings condemned to various hells like Mahā-raurava;

सत्यार्जवदानदयाहिंसाशमदमधृत्याद्यात्मगुणपाथेयपूर्णज्ञानोडुपे सत्सङ्गसर्वत्यागमार्गे मोक्षतीरे
That has the raft of knowledge – which is furnished with such provisions for the way as truth, simplicity, charity, compassion, non-injury, control of inner and outer organs, fortitude, etc. that are the embellishments of the heart, and which has good company and renunciation of everything as its course – and that has emancipation as its shore.

एतस्मिन् महत्यर्णवे प्रापतन् पतितवत्यः। तस्मादग्न्यादिदेवताप्ययलक्षणापि या गतिर्व्याख्याता ज्ञानकर्मसमुच्चयानुष्ठानफलभूता, सापि नालं संसारदुःखोपशमायेत्ययं विवक्षितोऽर्थोऽत्र।
Into this vast ocean, prāpatan, (they) fell. Hence, the idea sought to be imparted here is that even the attainment of the state of merger in the deities, viz. Fire and others, which was explained (earlier), and which is the result of the combined practice of meditation and karma – (even this) is not adequate for the removal of the sorrows of the world.

यत एवम्, तस्मादेवं विदित्वा, परं ब्रह्म, आत्मा आत्मनः सर्वभूतानां च, यो वक्ष्यमाणविशेषणः प्रकृतश्च जगदुत्पत्तिस्थितिसंहारहेतुत्वेन, स सर्वसंसारदुःखोपशमनाय वेदितव्यः।
Since this is so, therefore, after having grasped this fact, one should, for the eradication of all the worldly miseries, realize the supreme Brahman as the Self of one’s own as also of all beings – the Self which is possessed of the characteristics to be mentioned hereafter, and which has been introduced as the source of the origination, continuance, and dissolution of the universe.

तस्मात् ‘एष पन्था एतत्कर्मैतद्ब्रह्मैतत्सत्यम्’ (Ai. A. II. i. 1) यदेतत्परब्रह्मात्मज्ञानम्, ‘नान्यः पन्था विद्यतेऽयनाय’ (SvetU.3.8, SvetU.6.15) इति मन्त्रवर्णात्।
Therefore in accordance with the Veda text, ‘There is no other path for reaching there’ (SvetU.3.8, SvetU.6.15), it follows that, ‘This that is the knowledge of the oneness of Brahman and the Self, is the path, this is the karma, this is Brahman, this is truth’ (Ai. A. II. i. 1).

तं स्थानकरणदेवतोत्पत्तिबीजभूतं पुरुषं प्रथमोत्पादितं पिण्डमात्मानम् अशनायापिपासाभ्याम् अन्ववार्जत् अनुगमितवान् संयोजितवानित्यर्थः। तस्य कारणभूतस्य अशनायादिदोषवत्त्वात् तत्कार्यभूतानामपि देवतानामशनायादिमत्त्वम्।
(He, the Creator) anvavārjat, suffused, i.e. endowed; tam, Him – who was the source of the organs, their seats, and their deities, the Being (i.e. Virāṭ) who was the first begotten and the Self in the form of a lump; aśanāyā-pipāsābhyām, with hunger and thirst. Since He (the first begotten), the source of all, was afflicted with the defects of hunger etc. His products, the deities are also subject to hunger etc.

ताः ततः अशनायापिपासाभ्यां पीड्यमानाः एनं पितामहं स्रष्टारम् अब्रुवन् उक्तवत्यः। आयतनम् अधिष्ठानं नः अस्मभ्यं प्रजानीहि विधत्स्व, यस्मिन् आयतने प्रतिष्ठिताः समर्थाः सत्यः अन्नम् अदाम भक्षयाम इति

Thereafter, tāḥ, those (deities); being afflicted with hunger and thirst; abruvan, said; iti, this; enam, to Him, to the grandsire, to the Creator (of the body of Virāṭ); ‘Prajānīhi, provide; naḥ, for us; āyatanam, an abode; pratiṣṭhitāḥ yasmin, staying where – and becoming able; annam adāma, we can eat food.’


❚❚

For them, (the ātman) brought a cow (to inhabit as their abode). They said, “This is indeed not enough (alam, of a complete abode to fulfill all the natural desires) for us.”
For them, (the ātman) brought a horse. They said, “This is indeed not enough (alam) for us.”
For them, (the ātman) brought a cow (to inhabit as their abode) (ताभ्यः गाम् आनयत्). They said (ताः अब्रुवन्), “This is indeed not enough (alam, to fulfill all the natural desires) for us” (न वै नः अयम् अलम् इति).
For them, (the ātman) brought a horse (ताभ्यः अश्वम् आनयत्). They said (ताः अब्रुवन्), “This is indeed not enough (alam) for us” (न वै नः अयम् अलम् इति).
एवमुक्त ईश्वरः ताभ्यः देवताभ्यः गां गवाकृतिविशिष्टं पिण्डं ताभ्य एवाद्भ्यः पूर्ववत्पिण्डं समुद्धृत्य मूर्छयित्वा आनयत् दर्शितवान्। ताः पुनः गवाकृतिं दृष्ट्वा अब्रुवन्न वै नः अस्मदर्थम् अधिष्ठाय अन्नमत्तुम् अयं पिण्डः अलं न वै। अलं पर्याप्तः। अत्तुं न योग्य इत्यर्थः।
God, having been told so, tābhyaḥ, for them, for the deities; ānayat gām, brought a cow; having gathered up a lump of the size of a cow from that very water, just as before, and having fashioned it, He showed it (to them). Tāḥ, they, on their part, having seen the bovine form; abruvan, said; ‘Ayam, this one – this lump; na vai, is certainly not; alam, adequate; nah, for us – not fit to serve as a seat while eating food; that is to say, it is not sufficient so far as eating is concerned.’

गवि प्रत्याख्याते तथैव ताभ्यः अश्वम् आनयत्ता अब्रुवन्न वै नोऽयम् अलम् इति, पूर्ववत्॥

The cow having been rejected, He ānayat, brought; Aśvam, a horse; tābhyaḥ, for them. Tāḥ, they; abruvan, said; iti, this – just as before; ‘Ayam na vai alam naḥ, this is certainly not enough for us.’


❚❚

For them, (the ātman) brought a human form (to inhabit as their abode). They said, “This is indeed well made (su kṛta). The human form (puruṣa, in the same form as Virāṭ) indeed is well made.” (The ātman) said to them, “May you each enter into your respective abode (yathā āyatana, in this human form).”
For them, (the ātman) brought a human form (to inhabit as their abode) (ताभ्यः पुरुषम् आनयत्). They said (ताः अब्रुवन्), “This is indeed well made (su kṛta) (सु कृतं बत इति). The human form (in the same form as Virāṭ) indeed is well made” (पुरुषः वाव सु-कृतम्). (The ātman) said to them (ताः अब्रवीत्), “May you each enter into your respective abode (in this human form)” (यथा आयतनं प्रविशत इति).
सर्वप्रत्याख्याने ताभ्यः पुरुषम् आनयत् स्वयोनिभूतम्। ताः स्वयोनिं पुरुषं दृष्ट्वा अखिन्नाः सत्यः सु कृतं शोभनं कृतम् इदमधिष्ठानं बत इति अब्रुवन्। तस्मात् पुरुषो वाव पुरुष एव सुकृतम्, सर्वपुण्यकर्महेतुत्वात्; स्वयं वा स्वेनैवात्मना स्वमायाभिः कृतत्वात्सुकृतमित्युच्यते।
When all else had been rejected, tābhyaḥ, for them; ānayat, (He) brought; puruṣam, a man, their progenitor
[•Who conformed in features to Virāṭ, their origin•].
Having seen that man, who was their source, they became free from misery, and tāḥ, they; abruvan, said; iti, this; ‘This abode is su kṛtam bata, well created, to be sure.’ As a result puruṣaḥ vāva, man is indeed; su-kṛtam, virtue itself – he having become the source of all virtuous deeds
[•Since they pronounced man as su-kṛta, therefore man acts virtuously even today•].
Or, he is called su-kṛta, (lit.) created by oneself, because God created man by Himself, through His own Māyā.
[•Man was a good product, since God created him independently of servants and accessories. Su-kṛta is thus explained in three senses – good product, virtue, created by oneself (sva)•]

ताः देवताः ईश्वरः अब्रवीत् इष्टमासामिदमधिष्ठानमिति मत्वा – सर्वे हि स्वयोनिषु रमन्ते; अतः यथायतनं यस्य यत् वदनादिक्रियायोग्यमायतनम्, तत् प्रविशत इति

God thought that this abode was liked by them, since all beings love the source (from which they spring); and so He abravīt, said; tāḥ, to them, to the deities (devatāḥ); iti, this; ‘Praviśata, enter; yathā-āyatanam, into the respective abode – into the dwelling that suits each for such activities as speaking etc.’


❚❚

The deity Agni (Fire) entered into the mouth, becoming speech. Vāyu (Wind deity) entered into the nostrils, becoming the sense of smell. Āditya (Sun deity) entered into the eyes, becoming the sight. Diś (Space deity) entered into the ears, becoming hearing. The deities Plants and Trees entered the skin, becoming the hairs (i.e., the sense of touch). Candramas (Moon deity) entered into the heart, becoming the mind (the changeable one, reflecting the light of consciousness). Death (Mṛtyu) entered into the navel, becoming apāna (the downward life-energy, which allows the person to remain on this Earth, PrasU.3.8). And the deity Āpaḥ (Waters) entered into the penis, becoming the semen (the organ for procreation of future generations).
The deity Agni (Fire) entered into the mouth, becoming speech (अग्निः वाच् भूत्वा मुखं प्राविशत्). Vāyu (Wind deity) entered into the nostrils, becoming the sense of smell (वायुः प्राणः भूत्वा नासिके प्राविशत्). Āditya (Sun deity) entered into the eyes, becoming the sight (आदित्यः चक्षुः भूत्वा अक्षिणी प्राविशत्). Diś (Space deity) entered into the ears, becoming hearing (दिशः श्रोत्रं भूत्वा कर्णौ प्राविशन्). The deities Plants and Trees entered the skin, becoming the hairs (i.e., the sense of touch) (ओषधि-वनस्-पतयः लोमानि भूत्वा त्वचं प्राविशन्). Candramas (Moon deity) entered into the heart, becoming the mind (the changeable one, reflecting the light of consciousness) (चन्द्रमा मनस् भूत्वा हृदयं प्राविशत्). Death (Mṛtyu) entered into the navel, becoming apāna (the downward life-energy) (मृत्युः अपानः भूत्वा नाभिं प्राविशत्). And the deity Āpaḥ (Waters) entered into the penis, becoming the semen (the organ for procreation of future generations) (आपः रेतस् भूत्वा शिश्नं प्राविशन्).
तथास्त्वित्यनुज्ञां प्रतिलभ्येश्वरस्य नगर्यामिव बलाधिकृतादयः अग्निः वाग् अभिमानी वागेव भूत्वा स्वयोनिं मुखं प्राविशत् तथोक्तार्थमन्यत्।
Just as the commander and others of armies etc. (enter) into a city (at the bidding of the king), so having got the permission of God with the words, ‘Let this be so’, agniḥ, Fire, the deity that identifies himself with the organ of speech; bhūtvā, becoming; vāk, speech itself; prāviśat, entered; mukham, into the mouth, which was his source. Similarly are the rest to be explained.

वायुः नासिके, आदित्योऽक्षिणी, दिशः कर्णौ, ओषधिवनस्पतयः त्वचम्, चन्द्रमा हृदयम्, मृत्युर्नाभिम्, आपः शिश्नम्, प्राविशन्

Vāyuḥ, Air, entered nāsike, into the nostrils. Ādityaḥ, the Sun; akṣiṇī, into the eyes; diśaḥ, the Directions; karṇau, into the ears; oṣadhi-vanaspatayaḥ, the Herbs and Trees; tvacam, into the skin; candramāḥ, the Moon; hṛdayam, into the heart; mṛtyuḥ, Death; nābhim, into the navel (i.e. the root of the anus); āpaḥ, Water; śiśnam, into the generative organ.


❚❚

To that one (the ātman), Hunger and Thirst said, “Please envision for us both (an abode).” That (ātman) said, “I apportion that among these deities alone I will have you two be sharers along with them (when they eat).” Therefore, for whichever deity one offers oblation (food), both Hunger and Thirst are indeed sharers through this (in this deity as your abode).
(So in offering back to the deities through your sacred duties one also directly and indirectly, by engaging in the world and by ritual, satisfies one’s own natural desires).
To that one (the ātman), Hunger and Thirst said (तम् अशनाया-पिपासे अब्रूताम्), “Please envision for us both (an abode)” (आवाभ्याम् अभिप्रजानीहि इति). That (ātman) said (ते अब्रवीत्), “I apportion that among these deities alone I will have you two (एतासु एव वां देवतासु आभजामि) be sharers along with them (when they eat)” (एततासु भागिन्यौ करोमि इति). Therefore, for whichever deity one offers oblation (food) (तस्मात् यस्यै कस्यै च देवतायै हविस् गृह्यते), both Hunger and Thirst are indeed sharers through this (in this deity as your abode) (भागिन्यौ एव अस्याम् अशनाया-पिपासे भवतः).
एवं लब्धाधिष्ठानासु देवतासु निरधिष्ठाने सत्यौ अशनायापिपासे तम् ईश्वरम् अब्रूताम् उक्तवत्यौ – आवाभ्याम् अधिष्ठानम् अभिप्रजानीहि चिन्तय विधत्स्वेत्यर्थः।
When the gods had thus found their abodes, aśanāyā-pipāse, Hunger and Thirst, being without abodes; tam abrūtām, said, to that God; ‘Āvābhyām, for us; abhiprajānīhi, think of, i.e. provide; some abode.’

स ईश्वर एवमुक्तः ते अशनायापिपासे अब्रवीत्। न हि युवयोर्भावरूपत्वाच्चेतनावद्वस्त्वनाश्रित्य अन्नात्तृत्वं सम्भवति। तस्मात् एतास्वेव अग्न्याद्यासु वां युवां देवतासु अध्यात्माधिदेवतासु आभजामि वृत्तिसंविभागेनानुगृह्णामि।
He, God, having been told thus, abravīt, said, te, to those two – to Hunger and Thirst: ‘Since you are but feelings, you cannot possibly eat food without being supported by some conscious being. Therefore etāsu eva, among these beings themselves; devatāsu, among the deities, viz. Fire etc. – in the corporeal context, as also in the divine context; ābhajāmi vām, I favour you by apportioning your livelihood.

एतासु भागिन्यौ यद्देवत्यो यो भागो हविरादिलक्षणः स्यात्, तस्यास्तेनैव भागेन भागिन्यौ भागवत्यौ वां करोमीति
Karomi, I make you; bhāginyau, sharers; etāsu, among these gods. Whatever allotment, consisting of oblation etc., is assigned to any deity, I make you share in that very portion.’

सृष्ट्यादावीश्वर एवं व्यदधाद्यस्मात्, तस्मात् इदानीमपि यस्यै कस्यै च देवतायै देवताया अर्थाय हविर्गृह्यते चरुपुरोडाशादिलक्षणं भागिन्यौ एव भागवत्यावेव अस्यां देवतायाम् अशनायापिपासे भवतः

Since God ordained thus in the beginning of creation, tasmāt, therefore; even today; yasyai kasyai ca devatāyai, for which soever deity; havis, an oblation – such as porridge, cake, etc.; gṛhyate, is taken up; aśanāyā-pipāse, Hunger and Thirst; bhāginyau eva bhavataḥ, become sharers indeed; asyām, with that deity.

Go to Top ('Home' key on many Windows browsers)

mn.01 mn.02 mn.03 mn.04 mn.05 mn.06 mn.07 mn.08 mn.09 mn.10 mn.11 mn.12 mn.13 mn.14

❚❚

That (ātman) envisioned, “(Having created) these worlds (lokas) and the protectors of these worlds, now I shall create food (anna) for them.”
That (ātman) envisioned (सः ईक्षत), “(Having created) these worlds (lokas) and the protectors of these worlds, now (इमे नु लोकाः च लोक-पालाः च) I shall create food (anna) for them” (अन्नम् एभ्यः सृजै इति).
सः एवम् ईमीश्वरः ईक्षत। कथम्? इमे नु लोकाश्च लोकपालाश्च मया सृष्टाः, अशनायापिपासाभ्यां च संयोजिताः। अतो नैषां स्थितिरन्नमन्तरेण।
Saḥ, He, God; īkṣata, thought thus. How? ‘Ime nu, these then are; lokāḥ ca loka-pālāḥ ca, the senses and their deities – which have been created by Me and endowed with hunger and thirst; therefore these cannot subsist without food.

तस्मात् अन्नम् एभ्यः लोकपालेभ्यः सृजै सृजे इति। एवं हि लोके ईश्वराणामनुग्रहे निग्रहे च स्वातन्त्र्यं दृष्टं स्वेषु। तद्वन्महेश्वरस्यापि सर्वेश्वरत्वात्सर्वान्प्रति निग्रहे अनुग्रहे च स्वातन्त्र्यमेव॥

Accordingly, sṛjai (which is the same as sṛje), let Me create; annam, food; ebhyaḥ, for these – the deities of the senses.’ Thus is seen in the world the independence of lordly persons with regard to extending favour or disfavour to their own people. Therefore, the supreme Lord, too, has independence in the matter of favouring or disfavouring all, since He is the Lord of all.


❚❚

That (ātman) envisioned (abhyatapat) the waters. From the waters envisioned was manifested a form (mūrti). The form which manifested indeed became the food.
That (ātman) envisioned (abhyatapat) the waters (सः अपः अभ्यतपत्). From the waters envisioned was manifested a form (mūrti) (ताभ्यः अभितप्ताभ्यः मूर्तिः अजायत). The form which manifested (या वै सा मूर्तिः अजायत) indeed became the food (अन्नं वै तद्).
सः ईश्वरः अन्नं सिसृक्षुः ता एव पूर्वोक्ता अपः उद्दिश्य अभ्यतपत्ताभ्यः अभितप्ताभ्यः उपादानभूताभ्यः मूर्तिः घनरूपं धारणसमर्थं चराचरलक्षणम् अजायत उत्पन्नम्। अन्नं वै तत् मूर्तिरूपं या वै सा मूर्तिरजायत
Saḥ, He, God; being desirous of creating food; abhyatapat, deliberated with regard to; apaḥ, the water, already mentioned. Tābhyaḥ abhitaptābhyaḥ, from the water that was brooded over, and that formed the material; ajāyata, evolved; mūrtiḥ, a solid form – which could provide support (for others) and which comprised the moving and the unmoving. Yā vai sā mūrtiḥ ajāyata, the form that evolved; tat annam vai, that formed thing is verily food.


❚❚

That very manifested food turned (parāñc) and attempted to get way (ati-ajighāṃsat, SG.5.30.2.c: reduplicated-aorist of √han ati-gatau).
That (first born, the puruṣa) tried to catch it with vāc (speech), but was not able to catch it with speech. If anyone would be indeed able to catch it with speech, then one would be satisfied simply by speaking (abhivyāhṛtya) to food.(3)
That (first born, the puruṣa) tried to catch it with prāṇa (with the sense of smell), but was not able to catch it with smelling. If anyone would be indeed able to catch it with smelling, then one would be satisfied simply by smelling food.(4)
That (first born, the puruṣa) tried to catch it with cakṣus (with sight), but was not able to catch it with sight. If anyone would be indeed able to catch it with sight, then one would be satisfied simply by seeing food.(5)
That (first born, the puruṣa) tried to catch it with śrotra (with hearing), but was not able to catch it with hearing. If anyone would be indeed able to catch it with hearing, then one would be satisfied simply by hearing food.(6)
That (first born, the puruṣa) tried to catch it with tvac (with touch), but was not able to catch it with touch. If anyone would be indeed able to catch it with touching, then one would be satisfied simply by touching food.(7)
That (first born, the puruṣa) tried to catch it with manas (with thinking), but was not able to catch it with thinking. If anyone would be indeed able to catch it with thinking, then one would be satisfied simply by thinking about food.(8)
That (first born, the puruṣa) tried to catch it with śiśna (with the penis, by procreating), but was not able to catch it by procreating. If anyone would be indeed able to catch it by procreating, then one would be satisfied simply by procreating food.(9)
That (first born, the puruṣa) tried to catch it with apāna (the downward-energy, including ingestion and evacuation) and consumed it. This grasper (graha) of food is what vāyu (i.e., prāṇa, AitU.1.1.4, the ingesting prāṇa) is. This one whose life-span is by food (anna-āyus) indeed is what vāyu (prāṇa) is.(10)
1.3.3 (3.3) That very manifested food turned (parāñc) (तद् एनद् अभिसृष्टं पराच्) and attempted to get way (अति-अजिघांसत्)
● That (first born, the puruṣa) tried to catch it with vāc (speech) (तद् वाचा अजिघृक्षत्),
○ but was not able to catch it with speech (तद् न अशक्नोत् वाचा ग्रहीतुम्).
● If anyone would be indeed able to catch it with speech (सः यद् ह एनद् वाचा अग्रहैष्यत्),
○ then one would be satisfied simply by speaking (abhivyāhṛtya) to food (अभिव्याहृत्य ह एव अन्नम् अत्रप्स्यत्).
1.3.4 (3.4) ● That (first born, the puruṣa) tried to catch it with prāṇa (with the sense of smell) (तद् प्राणेन अजिघृक्षत्),
○ but was not able to catch it with smelling (तद् न अशक्नोत् प्राणेन ग्रहीतुम्).
● If anyone would be indeed able to catch it with smelling (सः यद् ह एनद् प्राणेन अग्रहैष्यत्),
○ then one would be satisfied simply by smelling (adhiprāṇya) food (अभिप्राण्य ह एव अन्नम् अत्रप्स्यत्).
1.3.5 (3.5) ● That (first born, the puruṣa) tried to catch it with cakṣus (with sight) (तद् चक्षुषा अजिघृक्षत्),
○ but was not able to catch it with sight (तद् न अशक्नोत् चक्षुषा ग्रहीतुम्).
● If anyone would be indeed able to catch it with sight (सः यद् ह एनद् चक्षुषा अग्रहैष्यत्),
○ then one would be satisfied simply by seeing food (दृष्ट्वा ह एव अन्नम् अत्रप्स्यत्).
1.3.6 (3.6) ● That (first born, the puruṣa) tried to catch it with śrotra (with hearing) (तद् श्रोत्रेण अजिघृक्षत्),
○ but was not able to catch it with hearing (तद् न अशक्नोत् श्रोत्रेण ग्रहीतुम्).
● If anyone would be indeed able to catch it with hearing (सः यद् ह एनद् श्रोत्रेण अग्रहैष्यत्),
○ then one would be satisfied simply by hearing food (श्रुत्वा ह एव अन्नम् अत्रप्स्यत्).
1.3.7 (3.7) ● That (first born, the puruṣa) tried to catch it with tvac (with touch) (तद् त्वचा अजिघृक्षत्),
○ but was not able to catch it with touch (तद् न अशक्नोत् त्वचा ग्रहीतुम्).
● If anyone would be indeed able to catch it with touching (सः यद् ह एनद् त्वचा अग्रहैष्यत्),
○ then one would be satisfied simply by touching food (स्पृष्ट्वा ह एव अन्नम् अत्रप्स्यत्).
1.3.8 (3.8)● That (first born, the puruṣa) tried to catch it with manas (with thinking) (तद् मनसा अजिघृक्षत्),
○ but was not able to catch it with thinking (तद् न अशक्नोत् मनसा ग्रहीतुम्).
● If anyone would be indeed able to catch it with thinking (सः यद् ह एनद् मनसा अग्रहैष्यत्),
○ then one would be satisfied simply by thinking about food (ध्यात्वा ह एव अन्नम् अत्रप्स्यत्).
1.3.9 (3.9) ● That (first born, the puruṣa) tried to catch it with śiśna (with the penis, by procreating) (तद् शिश्नेन अजिघृक्षत्),
○ but was not able to catch it by procreating (तद् न अशक्नोत् शिश्नेन ग्रहीतुम्).
● If anyone would be indeed able to catch it by procreating (सः यद् ह एनद् शिश्नेन अग्रहैष्यत्),
○ then one would be satisfied simply by procreating food (विसृज्य ह एव अन्नम् अत्रप्स्यत्).
1.3.10 That (first born, the puruṣa) tried to catch it with apāna (the downward-energy, including ingestion and evacuation) (तद् अपानेन अजिघृक्षत्) and consumed it (तद् आवयत्). This grasper of food is what vāyu (i.e., prāṇa) is (सः एषः अन्नस्य ग्रहः यद् वायुः). This one whose life-span is by food (anna-āyus) indeed is what vāyu (prāṇa) is (अन्न-आयुः वै एषः यद् वायुः).
तदेनत् अन्नं लोकलोकपालान्नार्थे अभि-मुखे सृष्टं सत्, यथा मूषकादिर्मार्जारादिगोचरे सन्, मम मृत्युरन्नाद इति मत्वा परागञ्चतीति पराङ् पराक्सत् अत्तॄन् अतीत्य अजिघांसत् अतिगन्तुमैच्छत्, पलायितुं प्रारभतेत्यर्थः।
Tat enat annam, this aforesaid food; that was abhi sṛṣṭam, created – in the presence of the senses and their deities. As a mouse, for instance, when in the presence of a cat, thinks, ‘This is an eater of food and is Death to me’, and moves back, similarly this food turned parāk, back; and ati-ajighāṃsat, wanted to go beyond the reach of the devourers; it began to run away.

तमन्नाभिप्रायं मत्वा स लोकलोकपालसङ्घातकार्यकरणलक्षणः पिण्डः प्रथमजत्वादन्यांश्चान्नादानपश्यन्, तत् अन्नं वाचा वदनव्यापारेण अजिघृक्षत् ग्रहीतुमैच्छत्। तत् अन्नं नाशक्नोत् न समर्थोऽभवत् वाचा वदनक्रियया ग्रहीतुम् उपादातुम्।
When that aggregate of the organs and their deities, that mass (Virāṭ) in the form of the body and senses (of Virāṭ), realized that intention of the food, but did not notice other eaters of food, He Himself being the first begotten, He ajighṛkṣat, tried to take up; tat, that food; vācā [3], through speech, through the act of speaking. Na aśaknot, He did not succeed; grahītum tat, to take up that (food); vācā, through speech, through speaking.

्रथमजः शरीरी यत् यदि ह एनत् वाचा अग्रहैष्यत् गृहीतवान्स्यात् अन्नम्, सर्वोऽपि लोकः तत्कार्यभूतत्वात् अभिव्याहृत्य हैव अन्नम् अत्रप्स्यत् तृप्तोऽभविष्यत्। न चैतदस्ति। अतो नाशक्नोद्वाचा ग्रहीतुमित्यवगच्छामः पूर्वजोऽपि। समानमुत्तरम्।
Yat, if; saḥ, He, the First Born, the first embodied Being; agrahaiṣyat, had taken up; enat, this food; vācā, through speech; then everyone, being a product of the First Born; atrapsyat, would have become satisfied; abhivyāhṛtya ha eva annam, merely by talking of food. But, as a mater of fact, this is not the case. Hence we understand that the First Born, too, did not succeed in grasping (food) through speech. The remaining portions are to be similarly explained.

तत्प्राणेन तच्चक्षुषा तच्छ्रोत्रेण तत्त्वचा तन्मनसा तच्छिश्नेन तेन तेन करणव्यापारेण अन्नं ग्रहीतुम् अशक्नुवन्पश्चात्
A-śaknuvan (na aśaknot) being unable (grahītum) to take up (tat annam) the food (prāṇena [4]) through the nose, (tat cakṣuṣā [5]) the eye, (tat śrotreṇa [6]) the ear, (tat tvacā [7]) the skin, (tat manasā [8]) the mind and (tat śiśnena [9]) the generative apparatus, that is to say, through the activity of the respective organs, at last –

अपानेन वायुना मुखच्छिद्रेण तत् अन्नम् अजिघृक्षत्, तदावयत् तदन्नमेवं जग्राह अशितवान्। तेन स एषः अपानवायुः अन्नस्य ग्रहः अन्नग्राहक इत्येतत्। यद्वायुः यो वायुः अन्नायुः अन्नबन्धनोऽन्नजीवनो वै प्रसिद्धः, स एष यो वायुः

He ajighṛkṣat, wanted to take up the food; apānena [10], by Apāna (the in-drawing energy of) air – through the cavity of the mouth. Tat āvayat, (He) took up that food thus; He ate it. Therefore saḥ eṣaḥ, this Apāna air; annasya grahaḥ, (is) the seizer of food, i.e. the devourer of food. Yat vāyuḥ (should be rather yaḥ vāyuḥ), the vital energy that is; anna-āyuḥ vai, well known as dependent of food, for its subsistence (āyus); is saḥ eṣaḥ, this very one; yat vāyuḥ, which is the vital energy, called Apāna.
[•The eater of food is not the Self, but the vital energy that manifests itself as inhaling etc•]


❚❚

(The ātman) envisioned, “Now, how could all this be without me (mad-ṛte)?” (The ātman) envisioned, “With which of these should I enter (prapadyai)?” (The ātman) envisioned, “If by speech there is speaking, if by prāṇa there is breathing, if by sight there is seeing, if by hearing there is hearing, if by touch there is touching, if by mind there is thinking, if by ingestion (apāna) there is ingesting, and if by the penis there is procreating, then what (purpose) am I?”
(The ātman) envisioned (सः ईक्षत), “Now, how could all this be without me (mad ṛte)” (कथं नु इदं मद्-ऋते स्यात् इति)? (The ātman) envisioned (सः ईक्षत), “With which of these should I enter (prapadyai)” (कतरेण प्रपद्यै इति)? (The ātman) envisioned (सः ईक्षत), “If by speech there is speaking (यदि वाचा अभिव्याहृतम्), if by prāṇa there is breathing (यदि प्राणेन अभिप्राणितम्), if by sight there is seeing (यदि चक्षुषा दृष्टम्), if by hearing there is hearing (यदि श्रोत्रेण श्रुतम्), if by touch there is touching (यदि त्वचा स्पृष्टम्), if by mind there is thinking (यदि मनसा ध्यातम्), if by ingestion there is ingesting (यदि अपानेन अभ्यपानितम्), and if by the penis there is procreating (यदि शिश्नेन विसृष्टम्), then what (purpose) am I” (अथ कः अहम् इति)?
सः एवं लोकलोकपालसङ्घातस्थितिम् अन्ननिमित्तां कृत्वा पुरपौरतत्पालयितृस्थितिसमां स्वामीव ईक्षतकथं नु केन प्रकारेण नु इति वितर्कयन्, इदं मत् ऋते मामन्तरेण पुरस्वामिनम्; यदिदं कार्यकरणसङ्घातकार्यं वक्ष्यमाणं कथं नु खलु मामन्तरेण स्यात् परार्थं सत्।
Having thus made the existence of the congress of the senses and their deities dependent on food, like the existence of a city, its citizens, and its rulers, saḥ, He; īkṣata, thought – like the ruler of the city, while cogitating thus: ‘Katham nu, how indeed; mat-ṛte, without Me, the master of the city; syāt, can there be; idam, this thing – this activity belonging to the body and the senses that will be spoken of – since it is meant for somebody else?

यदि वाचाभिव्याहृतम् इत्यादि केवलमेव वाग्व्यवहरणादि, तन्निरर्थकं न कथञ्चन भवेत् बलिस्तुत्यादिवत्। पौरबन्द्यादिभिः प्रयुज्यमानं स्वाम्यर्थं सत्स्वामिनमन्तरेण असत्येव स्वामिनि, तद्वत्।
Yadi vācā abhivyāhṛtam, if speaking is encompassed by the organ of speech, and so on, then use of speech etc. (prāṇena, cakṣuṣā, śrotreṇa, tvacā, manasā, apānena, śiśnena) will become useless, will not take place in any way, just as offerings and praises that are made and sung by citizens and bards in honour of their lord become useless when the lord is not there.

तस्मान्मया परेण स्वामिना अधिष्ठात्रा कृताकृतफलसाक्षिभूतेन भोक्त्रा भवितव्यं पुरस्येव राज्ञा।
Therefore, just as a king is with regard to a city, so I should be there as the supreme lord, the ruler, the witness of whatever has been done or not done as also their results, and the enjoyer.

यदि नामैतत्संहतकार्यस्य परार्थत्वम्, परार्थिनं मां चेतनं त्रातारमन्तरेण भवेत्, पुरपौरकार्यमिव तत्स्वामिनम्। अथ कोऽहं किंस्वरूपः कस्य वा स्वामी?
It is a logical necessity that the combination of the products (i.e. the body and the organs) should be meant for somebody else. If this necessity can be fulfilled even without Myself – who am a conscious being and by whom enjoyment through them is sought for – just as much as the activities of a city and its citizens can be without their lord, atha, then; kaḥ aham, who or what, and whose lord am I?

यद्यहं कार्यकरणसङ्घातमनुप्रविश्य वागाद्यभिव्याहृतादिफलं नोपलभेय राजेव पुरमाविश्याधिकृतपुरुषकृताकृतादिलक्षणम्, न कश्चिन्माम् अयं सन् एवंरूपश्च इत्यधिगच्छेद्विचारयेत्।
If, after entering into the combination of the body and the organs, I do not witness of the fruits of utterances etc. made by speech etc., just as a king, after entering a city, observes the omissions and commissions of the officers, then nobody will understand or think of Me as, “This one is a reality and is of this kind.”

विपर्यये तु, योऽयं वागाद्यभिव्याहृतादीदमिति वेद, स सन् वेदनरूपश्च इत्यधिगन्तव्योऽहं स्याम्, यदर्थमिदं संहतानां वागादीनामभिव्याहृतादि। यथा स्तम्भकुड्यादीनां प्रासादादिसंहतानां स्वावयवैरसंहतपरार्थत्वम्, तद्वदिति।
Contrariwise, I shall become cognizable as the conscious reality who knows as His objects such activities as utterance etc. of the organs of speech etc., and for whose sake exist these utterances etc. of such composite things as speech and so on, just as the pillars, walls, etc., that enter into the construction of a palace etc. exist for the sake of somebody else who (is sentient and) does not form a part of that structure.’

एवमीक्षित्वा अतः कतरेण प्रपद्या इति
Having reasoned thus, saḥ, He; īkṣata, thought; iti, thus; ‘Katareṇa prapadyai, through which shall I enter?

प्रपदं च मूर्धा च अस्य सङ्घातस्य प्रवेशमार्गौ; अनयोः कतरेण मार्गेणेदं कार्यकरणसङ्घातलक्षणं पुरं प्रपद्यै प्रपद्ये इति॥

There are two ways of entrance into this composite thing – the forepart of the foot and the head. Katareṇa, by which of these two paths; prapadyai (or rather, prapadyeyam), should I enter; into this city of the aggregate of body and organs?’


❚❚

(The ātman) broke through this hairy part (of the skull, the crown) and entered through this doorway (dvār, and down into the heart, as the jīva-ātman, the individual). That doorway is called vidṛti (the cleft, on the crown of the head). This entrance is a place of joy (nāndana, from which one may reach the joy in brahma-loka, KathU.2.3.16).
For this (individual) there are three abodes (āvasathas, from ā-vas-atha – right-eye/mind/heart or the father/mother/current body, i.e. semen/womb/body, that the jīva passes through) and three dreams (svapnas, the unreal “dream-like” experiences in each of the abodes). This (right-eye or the father’s body – the prior is the likely interpretation as something that can be pointed to with a ‘This’) is one abode. This (mind or the mother’s body) is another abode. This (heart or one’s current body) is another abode (constantly moving between these abodes and states, within saṃsāra). This is said (iti, in other Upaniṣads and in the next section – ManU.3–5 & PrasU.4.1–6; AitU.2.1.1–4).
(The ātman) broke through this hairy part (of the skull, the crown) (सः एतम् एव सीमानं विदार्य) and entered through this doorway (dvār, and down into the heart) (एतया द्वारा प्रापद्यत). That doorway is called vidṛti (the cleft, on the crown of the head) (सा एषा विदृतिः नाम द्वार्). This entrance is a place of joy (nāndana = nandana) (तद् एतद् नान्दनम्).
For this (individual) there are three abodes (right-eye/mind/heart or the father/mother/current body) (तस्य त्रयः आवसथाः) and three dreams (svapnas, the unreal “dream-like” experiences in each of the abodes) (त्रयः स्वप्नाः). This (right-eye or father’s body) is one abode (अयम् आवसथः). This (mind or mother’s body) is another abode (अयम् आवसथः). This (heart or one’s current body) is another abode (अयम् आवसथः). This is said (iti, in other Upaniṣads and in the next section) (इति).
एवमीक्षित्वा न तावन्मद्भृत्यस्य प्राणस्य मम सर्वार्थाधिकृतस्य प्रवेशमार्गेण प्रपदाभ्यामधः प्रपद्ये। किं तर्हि, पारिशेष्यादस्य मूर्धानं विदार्य प्रपद्ये इति लोक इव ईक्षितकारी य स्रष्टेश्वरः,
Having considered thus, ‘That being so, I should not enter through the lower way – viz. the two tips of the feet – that is the path of entry for My servant Prāṇa (the Vital Force), that is commissioned to act in every way on My behalf. What then (should I do)? As a last resort, let me enter by splitting up (the crown of ) its head’, (He entered) just like a human being who performs what he thinks.

स एतमेव मूर्ध-सीमानं केशविभागावसानं विदार्य च्छिद्रं कृत्वा एतया द्वारा मार्गेण इमं कार्यकारणसङ्घातं प्रापद्यत प्रविवेश।
Saḥ, He, the Creator god; etam eva sīmānam vidārya, having cleft this very end, having made a hole at the farthest point where the hair is parted; etayā dvārā, through this gate, this entrance; prāpadyata, entered – into this world, i.e. into this conglomeration of body and organs.

सेयं हि प्रसिद्धा द्वाः, मूर्ध्नि तैलादिधारणकाले अन्तस्तद्रसादिसंवेदनात्। सैषा विदृतिः विदारितत्वाद्विदृतिः नाम प्रसिद्धा द्वाः
This one is that entrance that becomes well known from the fact of the perception inside (the mouth) of the taste etc. of oil and other things when these are applied on the crown of the head (for a long time). Sā eṣā dvāḥ, this door; vidṛtiḥ nāma, is well known as vidṛti (the cleft one), because of its having been cleft.

इतराणि तु श्रोत्रादिद्वाराणि भृत्यादिस्थानीयसाधारणमार्गत्वान्न समृद्धीनि नानन्दहेतूनि। इदं तु द्वारं परमेश्वरस्यैव केवलस्येति। तदेतत् नान्दनं नन्दनमेव। नान्दनमिति दैर्घ्यं छान्दसम्। नन्दत्यनेन द्वारेण गत्वा परस्मिन्ब्रह्मणीति।
As for the other entrances – viz. the ear etc. – they are not rich, i.e. not sources of joy, since they are common passages meant for those occupying the places of servants etc. But this passage is only for the supreme Lord; tat, hence; etat nāndanam, this one is productive of joy. Nāndana is the same as nandana, the lengthening being a Veda licence. It is called because one revels (nandati) by going to the supreme Brahman through this door.

तस्य एवं सृष्ट्वा प्रविष्टस्यानेन जीवेनात्मना राज्ञ इव पुरम्, त्रय आवसथाः – जागरितकाले इन्द्रियस्थानं दक्षिणं चक्षुः, स्वप्नकाले अन्तर्मनः, सुषुप्तिकाले हृदयाकाश इत्येते; वक्ष्यमाणा वा त्रय आवसथाः – पितृशरीरं मातृगर्भाशयः स्वं च शरीरमिति।
Tasya, of Him, who, after having created thus, entered (the body) as an individual soul, like a king entering a city; there are trayaḥ āvasathāḥ, three abodes – viz. the right eye (dakṣiṇam cakṣus), the seat of the sense (of vision), during the waking state; the mind (manas) inside, during the dream state; and the space within the heart (hṛdaya-ākāśaḥ), during the state of deep sleep. Or the three abodes may be the ones that will be enumerated, viz. the body of the father, the womb of the mother, and one’s own body.

त्रयः स्वप्ना जाग्रत्स्वप्नसुषुप्त्याख्याः।
(He has) trayaḥ svapnāḥ, three (states of) dream, known as waking, dream, and deep sleep.

ननु जागरितं प्रबोधरूपत्वान्न स्वप्नः।
Objection: The waking state is not a dream, it being a state of consciousness.

नैवम्; स्वप्न एव।
Answer: Not so, it is verily a dream.

कथम्?
Objection: How?

परमार्थस्वात्मप्रबोधाभावात् स्वप्नवदसद्वस्तुदर्शनाच्च।
Answer: Since there is no consciousness of one’s own supreme Self, and in it are perceived unreal things as in a dream.

अयम् एव आवसथः चक्षुर्दक्षिणं प्रथमः। मनोऽन्तरं द्वितीयः। हृदयाकाशस्तृतीयः। अयमावसथः इत्युक्तानुकीर्तनमेव।
Ayam, this one – the right eye; is the first āvasathaḥ, abode; the second is the mind inside; and the space within the heart is the third. ‘Ayam āvasathaḥ, this is an abode’ is only a recounting of what has been already enumerated.

तेषु ह्ययमावसथेषु पर्यायेणात्मभावेन वर्तमानोऽविद्यया दीर्घकालं गाढं प्रसुप्तः स्वाभाविक्या, न प्रबुध्यतेऽनेकशतसहस्रानर्थसंनिपादजदुःखमुद्गराभिघातानुभवैरपि॥

Residing alternately as identified with those abodes, this individual soul sleeps deeply for long through natural ignorance, and does not wake up, though experiencing the blows of sorrow which arise from the concurrence of many hundreds of thousands of calamities and which fall like the thumps of a heavy club.


❚❚

The (individual) having been born, (with the help of the teaching and a teacher) carefully enquired (abhivyaikhyat, √abhi-vi-ā-khyā) into all these beings (bhūtas) and wanted to speak (vāvadiṣat) of what here could be other (anya). This one indeed saw this very puruṣa (oneself) as the brahman, the total being, as being the ultimate (ta-tama), (exclaiming) “I have seen (come to know) this.”
The (individual) having been born (सः जातः), carefully enquired into all these beings (भूतानि अभिव्यैख्यत्) and wanted to speak of what here could be other (anya) (किम् इह अन्यं वावदिषत् इति). This one indeed saw this very puruṣa (oneself) as the brahman, as the ultimate (ta-tama) (सः एतम् एव पुरुषं ब्रह्म त-तमम् अपश्यत्), (exclaiming) “I have seen (come to know) this” (इदम् अदर्शम् इती३).
स जातः शरीरे प्रविष्टो जीवात्मना भूतानि अभिव्यैख्यत् व्याकरोत्।
Saḥ jātaḥ, He being born, having entered into the body as the individual soul; abhivyaikhyat, manifested; bhūtāni, the beings.

कदाचित्परमकारुणिकेन आचार्येणात्मज्ञानप्रबोधकृच्छब्दिकायां वेदान्तमहाभेर्यां तत्कर्णमूले ताड्यमानायाम्, एतमेव सृष्ट्यादिकर्तृत्वेन प्रकृतं पुरुषं पुरि शयानमात्मानं ब्रह्म बृहत् ततमं तकारेणैकेन लुप्तेन तततमं व्याप्ततमं परिपूर्णमाकाशवत् प्रत्यबुध्यत अपश्यत्
When, by good luck, a teacher of supreme compassion beat near his ears the drum of the great sayings of the Upaniṣads whose notes were calculated to wake up the knowledge of the Self, then the individual apaśyat, realized; etam eva, this very; puruṣam, Puruṣa (as Brahman) – the Puruṣa that is being discussed as the Lord of creation etc., who is called Puruṣa because of residence (śayāna, i.e. existence) in the city (puri) (of the heart). (He realized Him) as brahma, Brahman, the Great (bṛhat); which is tatamam (tata-ma) by adding the missing ta, and taking the form tata-tamam, the word means the most pervasive, the fullest, like space.

कथम्? इदं ब्रह्म मम आत्मनः स्वरूपम् अदर्शं दृष्टवानस्मि। अहो इति। विचारणार्था प्लुतिः पूर्वम्॥

How (did he realize)? ‘Iti, O!; I adarśam, have seen; idam, this one – this Brahman, that is the real nature of my Self.’ The elongation (of i in itī) is in accordance with the rule that in the case of a word suggesting deliberation, the vowel gets lengthened.
[•The elongation suggests that he first considered whether Brahman had been fully realized or not and then got the conviction, ‘It is fully realized’. This conviction led to full satisfaction, expressed through the exclamation, ‘O!’•].


❚❚

Therefore, its name is “Idan-dra” (the one who sees all this, idam driyati, √dṛ). Idan-dra indeed is its name, and they call the one who is Idan-dra indirectly as “(Lord) Indra”. Indeed, the gods seem to love indirect (names). Indeed, the gods seem to love indirect (names).
Therefore, its name is “Idan-dra” (the one who sees all this) (तस्मात् इदन्द्रः नाम). Idan-dra indeed is its name (इदन्-द्रः ह वै नाम), and they call the one who is Idan-dra indirectly as “(Lord) Indra” (तम् इदन्द्रं सन्तम् इन्द्र इति आचक्षते परोक्षेण). Indeed, the gods seem to love indirect (names) (परोक्ष-प्रियाः इव हि देवाः). Indeed, the gods seem to love indirect (names) (परोक्ष-प्रियाः इव हि देवाः).
यस्मादिदमित्येव यत्साक्षादपरोक्षाद्ब्रह्म सर्वान्तरमपश्यत् न परोक्षेण, तस्मात् इदं पश्यतीति इदन्द्रो नाम परमात्मा। इदन्द्रो ह वै नाम प्रसिद्धो लोके ईश्वरः।
Since He realized Brahman as ‘this’, i.e. directly – ‘the Brahman that is immediate and direct, the Self that is within all’ (BrhUEng.3.4.1) – tasmāt, therefore, from the fact of seeing as ‘idam, this’, the supreme Self is idandraḥ nāma, called Idandra. God is idandraḥ ha vai nāma, verily known as Idandra; in the world.

तम् एवम् इदन्द्रं सन्तम् इन्द्र इति परोक्षेण परोक्षाभिधानेन आचक्षते ब्रह्मविदः संव्यवहारार्थं पूज्यतमत्वात्प्रत्यक्षनामग्रहणभयात्।
Tam idandram santam, Him who is Idandra; they, the knowers of Brahman, ācakṣate, call; parokṣeṇa, indirectly, by an indirect name; indraḥ iti, as Indra. (They call Him thus) for the sake of conventional dealings, they being afraid of referring by a direct name, since He is the most adorable.

तथा हि परोक्षप्रियाः परोक्षनामग्रहणप्रिया इव एव हि यस्मात् देवाः। किमुत सर्वदेवानामपि देवो महेश्वरः। द्विर्वचनं प्रकृताध्यायपरिसमाप्त्यर्थम्॥

So it follows that, hi, inasmuch as; devāḥ, the gods; are parokṣa-priyāḥ iva, verily fond of the use of indirect names; it needs no mention that the great Lord, the God of all the gods, must be much more so. The repetition (in parokṣa-priyāḥ etc.) is to indicate the end of the present Part (I).

Go to Top ('Home' key on many Windows browsers)

mn.01 mn.02 mn.03 mn.04 mn.05 mn.06

अस्मिन्नध्याये एष वाक्यार्थः – जगदुत्पत्तिस्थितिप्रलयकृदसंसारी सर्वज्ञः सर्वशक्तिः सर्ववित्सर्वमिदं जगत्स्वतोऽन्यद्वस्त्वन्तरमनुपादायैव आकाशादिक्रमेण सृष्ट्वा
Introduction: The purport of this Fourth
[•Fourth, counting from the First Part of the Āraṇyaka in which this Upaniṣad is included•]
(i.e. the First) Part (just finished) is this: The Reality that is the creator, preserver, and destroyer of the universe, and is transcendental, omniscient, omnipotent, and all-knowing, created in due order this entire universe beginning with space, without the help of any substance other than Himself.

स्वात्मप्रबोधनार्थं सर्वाणि च प्राणादिमच्छरीराणि स्वयं प्रविवेश; प्रविश्य च स्वमात्मानं यथाभूतमिदं ब्रह्मास्मीति साक्षात्प्रत्यबुध्यत;
Then He Himself entered into all the bodies possessed of vital force etc. for the sake of realizing His own Self. And having entered there, He realized directly His own Self in Its reality, as ‘I am this Brahman’.

तस्मात्स एव सर्वशरीरेष्वेक एवात्मा, नान्य इति। अन्योऽपि ‘स म आत्मा, ब्रह्मास्मीत्येवं विद्यात्’ इति ‘आत्मा वा इदमेक एवाग्र आसीत्’ (AitU.1.1.1) ‘ब्रह्म ततमम्’ (AitU.1.3.13) इति चोक्तम्।
Therefore He is the only one Self in all the bodies, and there is none besides. And so everybody else, too, should realize thus: ‘He is my Self’ (Kau. III. i. 8), ‘I am Brahman’ (BrhUEng.1.4.10 [•In the Commentary the two texts seem to have become combined•]).
Moreover, it has been said here, ‘In the beginning this was but the absolute Self alone’ (AitU.1.1.1), and ‘Brahman, the most pervasive’ (AitU.1.3.13), and so also in other Upaniṣads.

अन्यत्र च सर्वगतस्य सर्वात्मनो वालाग्रमात्रमप्यप्रविष्टं नास्तीति कथं सीमानं विदार्य प्रापद्यत पिपीलिकेव सुषिरम्?
Objection: For the One that is all-pervasive and that is the Self of all, there is not so much as the point of a hair unoccupied. Therefore how could He enter by splitting the end like an ant entering into a hole?

नन्वत्यल्पमिदं चोद्यम्। बहु चात्र चोदयितव्यम्।
Answer: This is but an insignificant question to be posed when there are so many others that can be asked here.

अकरणः सन्नीक्षत। अनुपादाय किञ्चिल्लोकानसृजत। अद्भ्यः पुरुषं समुद्धृत्यामूर्छयत्। तस्याभिध्यानान्मुखादि निर्भिन्नं मुखादिभ्यश्चाग्न्यादयो लोकपालाः। तेषां चाशनायादिसंयोजनं तदायतनप्रार्थनं तदर्थं गवादिप्रदर्शनं तेषां च यथायतनप्रवेशनं सृष्टस्यान्नस्य पलायनं वागादिभिस्तज्जिघृक्षेति। एतत्सर्वं सीमाविदारणप्रवेशसममेव।
That without organs He thinks; without the help of anything He created this universe; gathering up (a lump of) the human size from water, He gave it shape; from His brooding parted the mouth etc., from which emerged Fire etc., the presiding deities of the organs; the deities became associated with hunger and thirst; they prayed for abodes; cows etc. were shown to them; they entered into their respective abodes; the created food ran away; there was an attempt at taking it up with the organ of speech etc. – all these are on a par with the (problem of) splitting the end and entering.

अस्तु तर्हि सर्वमेवेदमनुपपन्नम्।
Objection: Then, let all of this, without exception, be incoherent.

न, अत्रात्माववोधमात्रस्य विवक्षितत्वात्सर्वोऽयमर्थवाद इत्यदोषः।
Answer: No, there is no fault, since all this is but eulogistic
[•Artha-vāda: meant for emphasizing something other than the idea conveyed literally•],
the only things sought to be taught here being the realization of the Self.

मायाविवद्वा; महामायावी देवः सर्वज्ञः सर्वशक्तिः सर्वमेतच्चकार सुखावबोधप्रतिपत्त्यर्थं लोकवदाख्यायिकादिप्रपञ्च इति युक्ततरः पक्षः।
Or a more reasonable explanation is that the Deity, who is omniscient and omnipotent and is a greater conjurer, created all this like a magician; but the parable etc. are elaborated for the sake of easy instruction and comprehension just as it is done in ordinary life.

न हि सृष्ट्याख्यायिकादिपरिज्ञानात्किञ्चित्फलमिष्यते। ऐकात्म्यस्वरूपपरिज्ञानात्तु अमृतत्वं फलं सर्वोपनिषत्प्रसिद्धम्। स्मृतिषु च गीताद्यासु ‘समं सर्वेषु भूतेषु तिष्ठन्तं परमेश्वरम्’ (BhG.13.27) इत्यादिना।
For the mere acquaintance with anecdotes regarding creation etc. leads to no useful result, whereas it is well known in all the Upaniṣads that from the knowledge of the unity of the Self as Its real nature follows immortality as a result; and the same fact is in evidence in the Smṛtis like the Gītā in such sentences as ‘(He sees, who sees) the Lord Supreme, existing equally in all beings, (deathless in the dying)’ (BhG.13.27).

ननु त्रय आत्मानो भोक्ता कर्ता संसारी जीव एकः सर्वलोकशास्त्रप्रसिद्धः।
Objection: There are three souls: One is well known in the world and in all the scriptures as the transmigrating soul (Jīva) that enjoys and acts.

अनेकप्राणिकर्मफलोपभोगयोग्यानेकाधिष्ठानवल्लोकदेहनिर्माणेन लिङ्गेन यथाशास्त्रप्रदर्शितेन पुरप्रासादादिनिर्माणलिङ्गेन तद्विषयकौशलज्ञानवांस्तत्कर्ता तक्षादिरिव ईश्वरः सर्वज्ञो जगतः कर्ता द्वितीयश्चेतन आत्मा अवगम्यते।
The second soul is the omniscient God (Īśvara), the creator of the universe, the intelligent one. And He is inferable from the logical ground shown in the scriptures, viz. the creation of bodies and worlds having many localities that are suitable for the enjoyment of the fruits of actions of innumerable beings, just as an architect etc. possessed of the requisite skill and knowledge can be inferred from the fact of the construction of a town, a palace, etc.

‘यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते’ (TaitU.2.4.1) ‘नेति नेति’ (BrhU.3.9.26) इत्यादिशास्त्रप्रसिद्ध औपनिषदः पुरुषस्तृतीयः।
The third is the all-pervading Consciousness (Puruṣa) presented by the Upaniṣads alone and well-known from such texts as: ‘From where speech turns back’ (TaitU.2.4.1), ‘Not this, not this’ (BrhUEng.3.9.26).

एवमेते त्रय आत्मानोऽन्योन्यविलक्षणाः। तत्र कथमेक एवात्मा अद्वितीयः असंसारीति ज्ञातुं शक्यते?
Thus there are these three selves distinct from one another. That being so, how can it be known that the Self is one without a second and transcendental?

तत्र जीव एव तावत्कथं ज्ञायते?
Vedāntin: As to that, how is the individual soul even known?

नन्वेवं ज्ञायते श्रोता मन्ता द्रष्टा आदेष्टाघोष्टा विज्ञाता प्रज्ञातेति।
Opponent: Is he not known as the hearer, thinker, seer, teacher, maker of (inarticulate) sounds, perceiver, and knower?

ननु विप्रतिषिद्धं ज्ञायते यः श्रवणादिकर्तृत्वेन ‘अमतो मन्ता अविज्ञातो विज्ञाता’ इति च। तथा ‘न मतेर्मन्तारं मन्वीथा न विज्ञातेर्विज्ञातारं विजानीयाः’ (BrhU.3.4.2) इत्यादि च।
Vedāntin: Is it not contradictory to say of him, who is known through the act of hearing etc., that ‘He thinks without being though of, he knows without being known’ (BrhUEng.3.8.11, KenU.1.6), and that ‘You cannot think of that which is the thinker of thought; you cannot know that which is the knower of knowledge’ (BrhUEng.3.4.2) etc.?

सत्यं विप्रतिषिद्धम्, यदि प्रत्यक्षेण ज्ञायेत सुखादिवत्। प्रत्यक्षज्ञानं च निवार्यते ‘न मतेर्मन्तारम्’ (BrhU.3.4.2) इत्यादिना। ज्ञायते तु श्रवणादिलिङ्गेन; तत्र कुतो विप्रतिषेधः?
Opponent: True, it will involve a contradiction if the individual soul is known directly like happiness etc. But as a fact, direct perception is denied by, ‘You cannot think of that which is the thinker of thought’, etc. But he is known through such inferential grounds as hearing etc. Hence how can there be a contradiction?

ननु श्रवणादिलिङ्गेनापि कथं ज्ञायते, यावता यदा शृणोत्यात्मा श्रोतव्यं शब्दम्, तदा तस्य श्रवणक्रिययैव वर्तमानत्वान्मननविज्ञानक्रिये न सम्भवत आत्मनि परत्र वा। तथा अन्यत्रापि मननादिक्रियासु।
Vedāntin: How is he known even through such grounds of inference as hearing etc.? For when the Self is engaged in hearing an audible sound, it cannot have the actions of thinking and knowing with regard to Itself or anything else, since it is engrossed only in the act of hearing. So also with regard to other acts like thinking.

श्रवणादिक्रियाश्च स्वविषयेष्वेव। न हि मन्तव्यादन्यत्र मन्तुः मननक्रिया सम्भवति।
And the acts of hearing etc. pertain to their own objects only (and not to their subjects); not that the act of thinking by the thinker can occur with regard to anything outside the thinkable.
[•The Self is not a thinkable object•]

ननु मनसः सर्वमेव मन्तव्यम्।
Opponent: Is not the mind able to think of everything?

सत्यमेवम्; तथापि सर्वमपि मन्तव्यं मन्तारमन्तरेण न मन्तुं शक्यम्।
Vedāntin: Truly this is so; still no thinkable can by thought of without the thinker
[•Mind being only an instrument for the Self, an agent has to be posited to make the act of thinking possible•].

यद्येवं किं स्यात्?
Opponent: Granted this is so, what follows?

इदमत्र स्यात् – सर्वस्य योऽयं मन्ता, स मन्तैवेति न स मन्तव्यः स्यात्।
Answer: This will be the accruing result here. He who is the thinker of all will simply be the thinker, and he will not be an object of thought.

न च द्वितीयो मन्तुर्मन्तास्ति। यदा स आत्मनैव मन्तव्यः, तदा येन च मन्तव्य आत्मा आत्मना, यश्च मन्तव्य आत्मा, तौ द्वौ प्रसज्येयाताम्।
And there is not a second thinker who can think of that thinker. Should he be thinkable by the Self, then there will be the contingency (of the existence) of two Selves – the one being the Self by which the (thinking) Self is thought of and the other Self which is thought of.

एक एव आत्मा द्विधा मन्तृमन्तव्यत्वेन द्विशकलीभवेद्वंशादिवत्, उभयथाप्यनुपपत्तिरेव। यथा प्रदीपयोः प्रकाश्यप्रकाशकत्वानुपपत्तिः, समत्वात्, तद्वत्।
Or, the same Self will be split into two halves, like a bamboo, to become the thinker and the thinkable. But it is illogical either way. This is analogous to the case of two lamps which, because of their similarity, cannot be (mutually) the illuminator and the illumined.

न च मन्तुर्मन्तव्ये मननव्यापारशून्यः कालेऽस्त्यात्ममननाय।
Besides, the thinker, while engaged in thinking of the thinkable object, has no time left out from the process of thinking during which to think of himself.
[•The mind engages not in the Self but in things external to it•]

यदापि लिङ्गेनात्मानं मनुते मन्ता, तदापि पूर्ववदेव लिङ्गेन मन्तव्य आत्मा, यश्च तस्य मन्ता, तौ द्वौ प्रसज्येयाताम्; एक एव वा द्विधेति पूर्वोक्तो दोषः।
Even on the supposition that the thinker thinks of the Self through the grounds of inference, there will spring up two Selves – the one that is inferred through logical grounds, and the other that infers. Or the same Self will be split up. And so there will be the defect already mentioned.

न प्रत्यक्षेण, नाप्यनुमानेन ज्ञायते चेत्, कथमुच्यते ‘स म आत्मेति विद्यात्’ (कौ. उ. ३-९) इति, कथं वा श्रोता मन्तेत्यादि?
Objection: If the Self be not known either through perception or inference, why is it said, ‘One should realize thus: “He is my Self”’ (Kau. III. 9)? Or why is the Self called the hearer, the thinker, etc.?

ननु श्रोतृत्वादिधर्मवानात्मा, अश्रोतृत्वादि च प्रसिद्धमात्मनः; किमत्र विषमं पश्यसि?
Answer: Is it not a fact that the Self is possessed of such qualities as the capacity of hearing
[•The Self is the eternal hearer, seer, etc.•],
and is it not well known (in the Upanisads) that It is free from such qualities as the capacity of hearing? What inconsistency do you find here?

यद्यपि तव न विषमम्; तथापि मम तु विषमं प्रतिभाति।
Opponent: Though it may not strike you as incongruous, to me it so.

कथम्?
Vedāntin: How?

यदासौ श्रोता, तदा न मन्ता; यदा मन्ता, तदा न श्रोता। तत्रैवं सति, पक्षे श्रोता मन्ता, पक्षे न श्रोता नापि मन्ता। तथा अन्यत्रापि च। यदैवम्, तदा श्रोतृत्वादिधर्मवानात्मा अश्रोतृत्वादिधर्मवान्वेति संशयस्थाने कथं तव न वैषम्यम्?
Opponent: When the Self is a hearer, It is not a thinker; and when It is a thinker, It is not a hearer. That being so, It becomes a hearer and a thinker from one point of view, while from another It is neither a hearer nor a thinker. So with regard to other situations. That being so, how can you avoid the feeling of an irreconcilability in the face of the doubt that crops up as to whether the Self is possessed of the capacity to hear etc., or possessed of the opposite quality of not being able to hear etc.?

यदा देवदत्तो गच्छति, तदा न स्थाता, गन्तैव। यदा तिष्ठति, न गन्ता, स्थातैव; तदास्य पक्ष एव गन्तृत्वं स्थातृत्वं च, न नित्यं गन्तृत्वं स्थातृत्वं वा, तद्वत्।
At the time when Deva-datta moves, he is not stationary, but he is moving to be sure; and when he is motionless, he is not moving, but staying on. During such a period he can be either moving or staying as an only exclusive continuously. The same is the case here.

तथैवात्र काणादादयः पश्यन्ति। पक्षप्राप्तेनैव श्रोतृत्वादिना आत्मोच्यते श्रोता मन्तेत्यादिवचनात्। संयोगजत्वमयौगपद्यं च ज्ञानस्य ह्याचक्षते।
Similar (also) is the view, in this matter, of the followers of Kaṇāda and others, according to whom the Self is called a hearer, a thinker, and so on because of Its being occasionally possessed of hearing etc. For they say that knowledge is a product of contact (between the mind and the senses), and that this contact is not simultaneous. And (as a proof) they adduce such illustrations as: ‘My mind was occupied with some other object, so I did not see this’.

दर्शयन्ति च अन्यत्रमना अभूवं नादर्शम् इत्यादि युगपज्ज्ञानानुत्पत्तिर्मनसो लिङ्गमिति च न्याय्यम्।
And (they argue that) it is proper to accept the non-simultaneity of knowledge as a logical ground for inferring the existence of mind.
[•If the mind did not exist, then all the senses, when simultaneously in contact with their objects, would perceive all the objects. But this is not a fact. So the Vaiśeṣikas believe in an atomic mind that gets connected with the senses in succession.•]

भवत्वेवं किं तव नष्टं यद्येवं स्यात्?
Let this be so. What do you lose if it be so?

अस्त्वेवं तवेष्टं चेत्; श्रुत्यर्थस्तु न सम्भवति।
Vedāntin: Let it be so if it be logical and if it pleases you. But it cannot be the meaning of the Upaniṣads.

किं न श्रोता मन्तेत्यादिश्रुत्यर्थः?
Opponent: Is it not implied by the Upaniṣads that the Self is the hearer, thinker, etc.?

न, न श्रोता न मन्तेत्यादिवचनात्।
Vedāntin: No, since there is the statement that It is not the hearer, thinker, etc.
[•Seems to be a reference to BrhUEng.4.4.2.•].

ननु पाक्षिकत्वेन प्रत्युक्तं त्वया;
Opponent: Was not that position denied by you by saying that It is occasionally so?

न, नित्यमेव श्रोतृत्वाद्यभ्युपगमात्, ‘न हि श्रोतुः श्रुतेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यते’ (BrhU.4.3.27) इत्यादिश्रुतेः।
Vedāntin: No, for by me the Self is accepted as the eternal hearer etc., according to the Veda text, ‘For the listener’s function of hearing can never be lost’ etc. (BrhUEng.4.3.27).

एवं तर्हि नित्यमेव श्रोतृत्वाद्यभ्युपगमे, प्रत्यक्षविरुद्धा युगपज्ज्ञानोत्पत्तिः अज्ञानाभावश्चात्मनः कल्पितः स्यात्। तच्चानिष्टमिति।
Objection: If on that view hearing etc. are admitted as eternal, there will be the simultaneous origin of (all kinds of) knowledge, which will contradict experience. Besides, this will lead to the assumption of absence of ignorance in the Self. And that is unacceptable.

नोभयदोषोपपत्तिः, आत्मनः श्रुत्यादिश्रोतृत्वादिधर्मवत्त्वश्रुतेः।
Answer: Neither of the defects arises, since according to the Upaniṣads, the Self can become the hearer etc. through Its (inherent) power of hearing etc. (BrhUEng.3.4.2).
[•By virtue of Its being the witness of all mental changes involved in the acts of hearing etc.•]

अनित्यानां मूर्तानां च चक्षुरादीनां दृष्ट्याद्यनित्यमेव संयोगवियोगधर्मिणाम्। यथा अग्नेर्ज्वलनं तृणादिसंयोगजत्वात्, तद्वत्। न तु नित्यस्यामूर्तस्यासंयोगविभागधर्मिणः संयोगजदृष्ट्याद्यनित्यधर्मवत्त्वं सम्भवति।
The seeing etc., by the impermanent and gross eyes etc. that are subject to conjunction and disjunction (with their objects), are impermanent indeed, just as the burning of fire is, because of its being produced from contact with hay etc. Not that the eternal and formless Self, which is free from the attributes of conjunction and disjunction, can have transitory qualities like seeing etc. that are caused by contact.

तथा च श्रुतिः ‘न हि द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यते’ (BrhU.4.3.23) इत्याद्या। एवं तर्हि द्वे दृष्टी चक्षुषोऽनित्या दृष्टिः, नित्या चात्मनः। तथा च द्वे श्रुती श्रोत्रस्यानित्या, नित्या चात्मस्वरूपस्य। तथा द्वे मती विज्ञाती बाह्याबाह्ये।
In support of this is the Veda text: ‘The vision of the witness can never be lost’ etc. (BrhUEng.4.3.23). From this it follows that there are two kinds of vision – the transitory vision of the eye and the eternal vision of the Self. Similarly, there are two kinds of hearing – the transitory hearing of the ear and the eternal hearing of that which by nature is the Self. So also are there two kinds of thinking and two sorts of knowing – the external and the internal.

एवं ह्येव चेयं श्रुतिरुपपन्ना भवति – ‘दृष्टेर्द्रष्टा श्रुतेः श्रोता’ इत्याद्या।
For on this view alone, and only in the way it has been shown, does the Veda text ‘The seer of seeing and the hearer of hearing’ (BrhUEng.3.4.2) become justifiable.

लोकेऽपि प्रसिद्धं चक्षुषस्तिमिरागमापाययोः नष्टा दृष्टिः जाता दृष्टिः इति चक्षुर्दृष्टेरनित्यत्वम्। तथा च श्रुतिमत्यादीनामात्मदृष्ट्यादीनां च,
It is a matter of experience, too, that the vision of the eye is non-eternal, inasmuch as it is lost or regained in accordance as the disease called Timira sets in or is cured. Similar is the case with hearing and thinking.

नित्यत्वं प्रसिद्धमेव लोके। वदति ह्युद्धृतचक्षुः स्वप्नेऽद्य मया भ्राता दृष्ट इति। तथा अवगतबाधिर्यः स्वप्ने श्रुतो मन्त्रोऽद्येत्यादि। यदि चक्षुःसंयोगजैवात्मनो नित्या दृष्टिस्तन्नाशे नश्येत्, तदा उद्धृतचक्षुः स्वप्ने नीलपीतादि न पश्येत्।
And the eternality of the vision etc. of the Self is well known in the world, for a man whose eyes have been plucked out says, ‘My brother has been seen by me in dream today.’ Similarly, a man who is known to be deaf may say, ‘A mantra has been heard by me today in dream’, etc. Should the eternal vision of the Self be produced merely through the contact of the eye, it should be destroyed on the destruction of the latter; and then a man whose eyes are plucked out should not perceive blue, yellow, etc. in dream.

‘न हि द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेः’ (BrhU.4.3.23) इत्याद्या च श्रुतिः अनुपपन्ना स्यात्। ‘तच्चक्षुः पुरुषे येन स्वप्नं पश्यति’ इत्याद्या च श्रुतिः।
Moreover, such Veda texts as, ‘The vision of the witness can never be lost’ etc. (BrhUEng.4.3.23), would be illogical; and the same will be the fate of such Veda texts as, ‘That is the eye in a man through which one sees in a dream.’

नित्या आत्मनो दृष्टिर्बाह्यानित्यदृष्टेर्ग्राहिका। बाह्यदृष्टेश्च उपजनापायाद्यनित्यधर्मवत्त्वात् ग्राहिकाया आत्मदृष्टेस्तद्वदवभासत्वमनित्यत्वादि भ्रान्तिनिमित्तं लोकस्येति युक्तम्।
The logical position is this: The eternal vision of the Self witnesses the ephemeral external vision; but since the external vision has such changing attributes as growth, decay, etc., the vision of the Self that witnesses it appears accordingly and seems to be ephemeral owing to the error of men.

यथा भ्रमणादिधर्मवदलातादिवस्तुविषयदृष्टिरपि भ्रमतीव, तद्वत्। तथा च श्रुतिः ‘ध्यायतीव लेलायतीव’ (BrhU.4.3.7) इति।
The case is similar to that of the vision fixed on a whirling firebrand or such other things, where the vision seems to be revolving (as the latter does). And in confirmation of this is the Veda text, ‘It thinks as it were, and shakes as it were’ (BrhUEng.4.3.7).

तस्मादात्मदृष्टेर्नित्यत्वान्न यौगपद्यमयौगपद्यं वा अस्ति। बाह्यानित्यदृष्ट्युपाधिवशात्तु लोकस्य तार्किकाणां च आगमसम्प्रदायवर्जितत्वात् अनित्या आत्मनो दृष्टिरिति भ्रान्तिरुपपन्नैव।
Hence the vision of the Self being eternal, it can have neither simultaneity, nor the opposite to it. But, for the ordinary people – owing to their preoccupation with the external limiting adjunct of ephemeral vision – and for the logicians, owing to their remaining outside scriptural tradition, it is quite possible to have the erroneous idea that the vision of the Self is impermanent.

जीवेश्वरपरमात्मभेदकल्पना च एतन्निमित्तैव। तथा अस्ति, नास्ति, इत्याद्याश्च यावन्तो वाङ्मनसयोर्भेदा यत्रैकं भवन्ति, तद्विषयाया नित्याया दृष्टेर्निर्विशेषायाः।
The imagination of difference among God, the individual soul, and the supreme Self can also be traced to this very error; and equally erroneous it is to fancy such ideas as ‘it is’, ‘it is not’, with regard to the eternal and unconditioned vision of that Entity in which all the variations of speech and mind (i.e. name and form) get unified.

अस्ति नास्ति, एकं नाना, गुणवदगुणम्, जानाति न जानाति, क्रियावदक्रियम्, फलवदफलम्, सबीजं निर्बीजम्, सुखं दुःखम्, मध्यममध्यम्, शून्यमशून्यम्, परोऽहमन्यः, इति वा सर्ववाक्प्रत्ययागोचरे स्वरूपे यो विकल्पयितुमिच्छति, स नूनं खमपि चर्मवद्वेष्टयितुमिच्छति, सोपानमिव च पद्भ्यामारोढुम्; जले खे च मीनानां वयसां च पदं दिदृक्षते;
He who entertains (with regard to that Reality beyond all speech and mind) any desire of fancying that It exists or does not exist; that It is one or is many; that It has attributes or has not; that It knows or does not; that It is active or is not; that It is fruitful or is fruitless; that It has a seed or is seedless; that It is happiness or is misery; that It is inside or is outside; that It is void or not; or that ‘It is different (from me)’, or that ‘I am different (from It)’ – (that man) may as well wish to roll up the sky like leather, to ascend there with his feet like ascending up a staircase, or to trace the footprints of the fish and birds in water and sky;

‘नेति नेति’ (BrhU.3.9.26) ‘यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते’ (TaitU.2.4.1) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः, ‘को अद्धा वेद’ (ऋ. सं. १-३०-६) इत्यादिमन्त्रवर्णात्।
For the Upaniṣad texts declare: ‘Not this, not this’ (BrhUEng.3.9.26), ‘From which words turn back’ (TaitU.2.4.1), and so on, And there is the mantra text, ‘Who indeed knows?’ etc. (R. I. xxx. 6).

कथं तर्हि तस्य स म आत्मेति वेदनम्; ब्रूहि केन प्रकारेण तमहं स म आत्मेति विद्याम्।
Objection: How then does he get the realization, ‘He is my Self’? Tell me, how can I realize Him as, ‘He is my Self’.

अत्राख्यायिकामाचक्षते – कश्चित्किल मनुष्यो मुग्धः कैश्चिदुक्तः कस्मिंश्चिदपराधे सति धिक्त्वां नासि मनुष्य इति। स मुग्धतया आत्मनो मनुष्यत्वं प्रत्याययितुं कंचिदुपेत्याह – ब्रवीतु भवान्कोऽहमस्मीति। स तस्य मुग्धतां ज्ञात्वा आह – क्रमेण बोधयिष्यामीति। स्थावराद्यात्मभावमपोह्य न त्वममनुष्य इत्युक्त्वोपरराम। स तं मुग्धः प्रत्याह – भवान्मां बोधयितुं प्रवृत्तस्तूष्णीं बभूव, किं न बोधयतीति।
Answer: Apropos of this, they relate a story: An idiotic person who committed some guilt was told, ‘Fie on you! You are no man!’ Because of his stupidity he approached somebody to get the conviction that he was a man and told him, ‘Tell me who I am.’ The latter understood his silliness and said, ‘I shall make you understand by degrees.’ And then after proving that he was not a motionless thing, and so on, he (the teacher) concluded with, ‘You are none other than a man.’ That dullard then told him, ‘You who started to enlighten me have become silent. Why do you not instruct me?

तादृगेव तद्भवतो वचनम्। नास्यमनुष्य इत्युक्तेऽपि मनुष्यत्वमात्मनो न प्रतिपद्यते यः, स कथं मनुष्योऽसीत्युक्तोऽपि मनुष्यत्वमात्मनः प्रतिपद्येत?
That sentence of yours is just like this. How can he, who does not understand himself to be a man when told, ‘You are none other that a man’, understand himself to be a man even when told, ‘You are a man’?

तस्माद्यथाशास्त्रोपदेश एवात्मावबोधविधिः, नान्यः। न ह्यग्नेर्दाह्यं तृणादि अन्येन केनचिद्दग्धुं शक्यम्। अत एव शास्त्रमात्मस्वरूपं बोधयितुं प्रवृत्तं सत् अमनुष्यत्वप्रतिषेधेनेव ‘नेति नेति’ (BrhU.3.9.26) इत्युक्त्वोपरराम।
Therefore the process to be followed in enlightening about the Self is as it is set forth in the scriptures and nothing else; for hay etc. that can be consumed by fire are not burnt by anything else. It is because of this that the scripture, which started to impart knowledge about the nature of the Self, stopped after declaring, ‘Not this, not this’ (BrhUEng.3.9.26), just as it was done in the story after negating all that was other than man.

तथा ‘अनन्तरमबाह्यम्’ (BrhU.2.5.19, BrhU.3.8.8) ‘अयमात्मा ब्रह्म सर्वानुभूः’ (BrhU.2.5.19) इत्यनुशासनम्; ‘तत्त्वमसि’ (ChanU.6.8.7) ‘यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्’ (BrhU.2.4.14, BrhU.4.5.15) इत्येवमाद्यपि च।
And similar are the texts, ‘Without interior or exterior’ (BrhUEng.2.5.19, 3.8.8), ‘This Self, the perceiver of everything, is Brahman. This is the teaching’ (BrhUEng.2.5.19), ‘Thou art That’ (ChanU.6.8.7 – 6.16.3), ‘But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, what should one see and through what?’ (BrhUEng.2.4.14, 4.5.15); and there are still others.

यावदयमेव यथोक्तमिममात्मानं न वेत्ति, तावदयं ब्राह्मानित्यदृष्टिलक्षणमुपाधिमात्मत्वेनोपेत्य अविद्यया उपाधिधर्मानात्मनो मन्यमानो ब्रह्मादिस्तम्बपर्यन्तेषु स्थानेषु पुनः पुनरावर्तमानः अविद्याकामकर्मवशात्संसरति।
As long as one does not realize thus this Self that has been described, so long does not accept as one’s Self the external limiting adjunct
[•The mind whose vision is identical with itself and is external to the Self.•]
which is in the form of ephemeral vision; and considering through ignorance the attributes of the limiting adjuncts as one’s own, one transmigrates under the influence of ignorance, desire, and action, by rotating again and again through the regions of the gods, animals, and men, that range from Brahmā to a clump of grass.

स एवं संसरन् उपात्तदेहेन्द्रियसङ्घातं त्यजति। त्यक्त्वा अन्यमुपादत्ते। पुनः पुनरेवमेव नदीस्रोतोवज्जन्ममरणप्रबन्धाविच्छेदेन वर्तमानः काभिरवस्थाभिर्वर्तते इत्येतमर्थं दर्शयन्त्याह श्रुतिः वैराग्यहेतोः –

While transmigrating thus, one rejects the body assumed earlier, and giving it up, accepts another. In the course of showing what states one experiences as one continues thus without a break in the current of birth and death, as though in a river, the Upaniṣad says with a view to generating detachment:


❚❚

In a male person’s body (puruṣa) indeed this individual (the jīva-ātman) is initially conceived as a (pre-)embryo (garbha). That which is this seed (retas, about half of the DNA for the individual’s body) is the vigor (tejas) produced from all the limbs (of the male). The (male) carries (bibharti) this (jīva-)ātman in his ātman (the male body, not as different from him). When he sprinkles that into the female, then he procreates this (individual). That is its first birth (janman – starting from the passage through the individual’s parents, though jīva-ātman is beginningless in the saṃsāra cycle, consisting of individual’s past bodies, reaching up to heavenly bodies, then catching a ride back through rain, earth and food into the father’s body, etcetera, BhG.3.14).
In a male person’s body (puruṣa) indeed (पुरुषे ह वै) this individual (the jīva-ātman) is initially conceived as a (pre-)embryo (garbha) (अयम् आदितः गर्भः भवति). That which is this seed (retas, about half of the DNA for the individual’s body) (यद् एतद् रेतस्) is the vigor (tejas) produced from all the limbs (of the male) (तद् एतद् सर्वेभ्यः अङ्गेभ्यः तेजः सम्भूतम्). The (male) carries this (jīva-)ātman in his ātman (the male body, not as different from himself) (आत्मनि एव आत्मानं बिभर्ति). When he sprinkles that into the female (तद् यथा स्त्रियां सिञ्चति), then he procreates this (individual) (अथ एनद् जनयति). That is its first birth (janman) (तद् अस्य प्रथमं जन्म).
अयमेवाविद्याकामकर्माभिमानवान् यज्ञादिकर्म कृत्वा अस्माल्लोकाद्धूमादिक्रमेण चन्द्रमसं प्राप्य क्षीणकर्मा वृष्ट्यादिक्रमेण इमं लोकं प्राप्य अन्नभूतः पुरुषाग्नौ हुतः।
This very man performs such karmas as sacrifice etc. owing to his self-identification with ignorance, desire, and action; then he reaches the lunar region after passing from this world through smoke and the rest in succession; and then, when the fruits of his action become exhausted, he reaches this world to become food after passing in succession through rain etc.; then he is poured as a libation in the fire that is man.

तस्मिन् पुरुषे ह वै अयं संसारी रसादिक्रमेण आदितः प्रथमतः रेतोरूपेण गर्भो भवति इति एतदाह – यदेतत् पुरुषे रेतः, तेन रूपेणेति।
Puruṣe ha vai, in that man indeed; ayam, that, transmigrating soul; āditaḥ garbhaḥ bhavati, is first conceived, in the form of semen after passing through the (state of being the) essence of food etc. This is being stated by saying that he takes birth in that form, in the text, ‘Yat etat retas.’

तच्एतत् रेतः अन्नमयस्य पिण्डस्य सर्वेभ्यः अङ्गेभ्यः अवयवेभ्यो रसादिलक्षणेभ्यः तेजः साररूपं शरीरस्य सम्भूतं परिनिष्पन्नं तत् पुरुषस्य आत्मभूतत्वादात्मा, तमात्मानं रेतोरूपेण गर्भीभूतम् आत्मन्येव स्वशरीर एव आत्मानं बिभर्ति धारयति।
Tat etat retas, that which is this semen; sambhūtam, is accomplished, (extracted); as tejas, vigour, essence, of the body; sarvebhyaḥ aṅgebhyaḥ, from all the limbs, from all the component parts, such as the juice of the body which is the product of food. Being identified with the man himself, this (semen) is called his self. He bibharti, bears; that ātmānam, self that has been conceived in the form of semen; ātmani eva, in his own self; (in other words) he holds his own self (the semen) in his own body.

तत् रेतः स्त्रियां सिञ्चति यदा, यदा यस्मिन्काले भार्या ऋतुमती तस्यां योषाग्नौ स्त्रियां सिञ्चति उपगच्छन्, अथ तदा एनत् एतद्रेतः आत्मनो गर्भरूपं जनयति पिता।
Yadā, when – when his wife is in the proper state; he siñcati, sheds, while in union; tat, that semen; striyām, in the wife – in the fire of the woman; atha, then; the father janayati, procreates; enat, this one – the semen that was conceived by him as identified with himself.

तत् अस्य पुरुषस्य स्थानान्निर्गमनं रेतःसेककाले रेतोरूपेण अस्य संसारिणः प्रथमं जन्म प्रथमावस्थाभिव्यक्तिः। तदेतदुक्तं पुरस्तात् ‘असावात्मा अमुमात्मानम्’ इत्यादिना॥

Asya, of that transmigrating soul; tat, that, that issuing out of its own place, in the form of semen, when it is being poured out; is the prathamam janma, the first birth – the first manifested state. This fact was stated earlier by the text, ‘This self (that is the man), (offers) this self of his (that is the semen), to that self of his (that is the wife).’


❚❚

That (retas, the seed) transforms into the ātman (the body) of the female (as not different from her). It becomes as though her own limb. Therefore, it does not harm her (her body does not reject it as foreign). She nourishes (bhāvayati) this ātman, which (first) was his (the father’s) and has entered into her.
That (retas, the seed) transforms into the ātman (the body) of the female (as not different from her) (तद् स्त्रियाः आत्म-भूयं गच्छति). It becomes as though her own limb (यथा स्वम् अङ्गं तथा). Therefore, it does not harm her (her body does not reject it as foreign) (तस्मात् एनां न हिनस्ति). She nourishes (bhāvayati) this ātman, which (first) was his (the father’s) and has entered into her (सा अस्य एतम् आत्मानम् अत्र गतं भावयति).
तत् रेतः यस्यां स्त्रियां सिक्तं सत्तस्याः स्त्रियाः आत्मभूयम् आत्माव्यतिरेकतां यथा पितुः एवं गच्छति प्राप्नोति यथा स्वमङ्गं स्तनादि, तथा तद्वदेव।
Tat, that, the semen; gacchati, becomes; ātma-bhūyam, non-different – striyāḥ, from the wife into whom it is shed; yathā svam aṅgam tathā, just like her own limb – her breast etc. – as it was in the case of the father.

तस्माद् धेतोः एनां मातरं स गर्भो न हिनस्ति पिटकादिवत्। यस्मात्स्तनादि स्वाङ्गवदात्मभूयं गतम्, तस्मान्न हिनस्ति न बाधत इत्यर्थः।
Tasmāt, because of this fact; the foetus na hinasti, does not hurt – like a boil; enām, this one – the mother. Since it has become a part of herself just like her breast etc., therefore it does not hurt her; this is the idea.

सा अन्तर्वत्नी एतम् अस्य भर्तुः आत्मानम् अत्र आत्मन उदरे गतं प्रविष्टं बुद्ध्वा भावयति वर्धयति परिपालयति गर्भविरुद्धाशनादिपरिहारम् अनुकूलाशनाद्युपयोगं च कुर्वती॥

, she, that pregnant women; understanding etam ātmānam, this self; asya, of her husband; atra gatam, as having entered here – into her womb; bhāvayati, nourishes, protects it – by avoiding food etc. that are injurious to the foetus and by accepting such food etc. as are favourable to it.


❚❚

As the nourisher (of this ātman) she becomes one to be nourished (by the male). The female bears (bibharti) that embryo. The male nourishes (bhāvayati, protects) the child (kumāra) indeed at the start (agre), before and after (agre adhi) the birth. The fact that (yad) he protects the child indeed at the start, before and after the birth, is that he protects himself alone (ātmānam eva) for the continuance (santa) of these worlds (of progeny). For thus are these worlds continued. That is its second birth (janman, from the mother).
As the nourisher (of this ātman) she becomes one to be nourished (by the male) (सा भावयित्री भावयितव्या भवति). The female bears (bibharti) that embryo (तं स्त्री गर्भं बिभर्ति). The male nourishes (bhāvayati, protects) the child indeed at the start (सः अग्रे एव कुमारं भावयति), before and after the birth (जन्मनः अग्रे अधि).
The fact that (yad) he protects the child indeed at the start, before and after the birth (सः यद् कुमारं जन्मनः अग्रे अधि भावयति), is that he protects himself alone (ātmānam eva) (आत्मानम् एव तद् भावयति) for the continuance (santa) of these worlds (of progeny) (एषां लोकानां सन्तत्यै). For thus are these worlds continued (एवं सन्तताः हि इमे लोकाः). That is its second birth (janman, from the mother) (तद् अस्य द्वितीयं जन्म).
सा भावयित्री वर्धयित्री भर्तुरात्मनो गर्भभूतस्य भावयितव्या वर्धयितव्या च भर्त्रा भवति। न ह्युपकारप्रत्युपकारमन्तरेण लोके कस्यचित्केनचित्संबन्ध उपपद्यते।
, she; the bhāvayitrī, nourisher, of the self of her husband, conceived in her womb; bhāvayitavyā bhavati, becomes fit to be nourished, to be protected, by the husband for, in this world, no one can have any relation with another unless it be through reciprocity of benefit.

तं गर्भं स्त्री यथोक्तेन गर्भधारणविधानेन बिभर्ति धारयति अग्रे प्राग्जन्मनः।
Strī, the wife; bibharti, bears; tam garbham, that foetus; agre, before its birth, by following the method of protecting the foetus mentioned earlier.

सः पिता अग्रे एव पूर्वमेव जातमात्रं कुमारं जन्मनः अधि ऊर्ध्वं जन्मनः जातं कुमारं जातकर्मादिना पिता भावयतिसः पिता यत् यस्मात् कुमारं जन्मनः अधि ऊर्ध्वं अग्रे जातमात्रमेव जातकर्मादिना यद् भावयति, तत् आत्मानमेव भावयति; पितुरात्मैव हि पुत्ररूपेण जायते।
Saḥ, he, the father; bhāvayati, protects, through natal rites etc.; kumāram, the son; agre eva, at the very start, as soon as he is born; janmanaḥ adhi, after the birth. Yat, that; saḥ, he, the father; bhāvayati, protects; kumāram, the son, through natal rites etc.; agre janmanaḥ adhi, at the very start, just after the birth; tat, thereby; he bhāvayati ātmānam eva, protects his own self. For it is the father’s self that takes birth as the son.

तथा ह्युक्तम् ‘पतिर्जायां प्रविशति’ (हरि. ३-७३-७१) इत्यादि। तत्किमर्थमात्मानं पुत्ररूपेण जनयित्वा भावयतीति? उच्यते – एषां लोकानां सन्तत्यै अविच्छेदायेत्यर्थः।
And so has it been said, ‘The husband enters into the wife’ (Hair. III. 1xxiii. 31). Now is being stated why the father protects after having begotten himself as the son: eṣām lokānām santatyai, for the continuance of these worlds. This is the idea.

विच्छिद्येरन्हीमे लोकाः पुत्रोत्पादनादि यदि न कुर्युः। एवं पुत्रोत्पादनादिकर्माविच्छेदेनैव सन्तताः प्रबन्धरूपेण वर्तन्ते हि यस्मात् इमे लोकाः, तस्मात्तदविच्छेदाय तत्कर्तव्यम्; न मोक्षायेत्यर्थः।
For these worlds will cease to continue if everyone should stop procreating sons etc. The idea is this: Hi ime lokāḥ, since these worlds; evam santatāḥ, thus continue to flow; like a current through the continuity of such acts as the begetting of sons, therefore these acts should be undertaken for the non-stoppage of the worlds, but not for the sake of emancipation (mokṣa).

तत् अस्य संसारिणः कुमाररूपेण मातुरुदराद्यन्निर्गमनम्, तत् रेतोरूपापेक्षया द्वितीयं जन्म द्वितीयावस्थाभिव्यक्तिः॥

Tat, that fact, the issuing out; asya, of him, of the transmigrating soul, as a son from the mother’s womb; is the dvitīyam janma, second birth, the manifestation of the second state, relatively to his form as semen.


❚❚

That one (who is born, as a son) is appointed (pratidhīyate) as his (the father’s) self (as successor) for (continuance of) beneficial deeds and rituals.
Then this (father, as) the other self (of the child), having done all the duties, attains old age and dies, then indeed he departs from this (world) and is reborn (in another world). That is its (the jīva-ātman’s) third birth (into the next world).
That one (who is born, as a son) is appointed (pratidhīyate) as his (the father’s) self (as successor) for (continuance of) beneficial deeds and rituals (सः अस्य अयम् आत्मा पुण्येभ्यः कर्मभ्यः प्रतिधीयते).
Then this (father) the other self (of the child), having done all the duties, attains old age and dies (अथ अस्य अयम् इतरः आत्मा कृत-कृत्यः वयो-गतः प्रैति), (then) indeed he departs from this (world) (सः इतः प्रयन् एव) and is reborn (in another world) (पुनर् जायते). That is its (the jīva-ātman’s) third birth (into the next world) (तद् अस्य तृतीयं जन्म).
अस्य पितुः सोऽयं पुत्र-आात्मा पुण्येभ्यः शास्त्रोक्तेभ्यः कर्मभ्यः कर्मनिष्पादनार्थं प्रतिधीयते पितुः स्थाने पित्रा यत्कर्तव्यं तत्करणाय प्रतिनिधीयत इत्यर्थः।
Saḥ ayam ātmā, that self which is the son; asya, of his, of the father; pratidhīyate, is deputed, by the father, in his own place; puṇyebhyaḥ karmabhyaḥ, for the performance of virtuous deeds, as prescribed by the scriptures, i.e. for the accomplishment of all that was the father’s duty.

तथा च सम्प्रत्तिविद्यायां वाजसनेयके – ‘पित्रानुशिष्टोऽहं ब्रह्माहं यज्ञ इत्यादि प्रतिपद्यते’ (BrhU.1.5.17) इति।
Similarly it is seen in the Vāja-saneyaka, in the portion dealing with the substitution (of the son), that on being instructed by the father, the son admits thus: ‘I am Brahman (i.e. the Vedas), I am the sacrifice’ (BrhUEng.1.5.17).
[•The father’s idea is this: ‘Let the study of the Vedas (Brahman) which so long was my duty, devolve on you, for you are Brahman. Similarly, whatever sacrifices there are, that were to be performed by me, be henceforth performed by you, for you are the sacrifices.’ All this the son accepts.•]

अथ अनन्तरं पुत्रे निवेश्यात्मनो भारम् अस्य पुत्रस्य इतरः अयं यः पित्र-आत्मा कृतकृत्यः, कर्तव्यात् ऋणत्रयात् विमुक्तः कृतकर्तव्य इत्यर्थः, वयोगतः गतवयाः जीर्णः सन् प्रैति म्रियते।
Atha, after that, after the father’s responsibility has been entrusted to the son; ayam itaraḥ ātmā, this other self that is the father; asya, of this one, of the son; kṛta-kṛtyaḥ, becoming freed from duties, from the three debts (to the gods, to the seers, and to the manes), i.e. having got all his duties fulfilled; vayo-gataḥ, having advanced in age, being afflicted with decrepitude; praiti, dies.

सः इतः अस्मात् प्रयन्नेव शरीरं परित्यजन्नेव, तृणजलूकादिवत्, देहान्तरमुपाददानः कर्मचितम्, पुनर्जायतेतदस्य मृत्वा प्रतिपत्तव्यं यत्, तत् तृतीयं जन्म
Saḥ itaḥ prayan eva, as soon as he departs from here, no sooner does he leave the body than; he punaḥ jāyate, takes birth again, by adopting another body according to the results of his actions (by moving from one body to the other) just like a leech. Tat, that, the birth that he gets after death; is asya tṛtīyam janma, the third birth of this one.

ननु संसरतः पितुः सकाशाद्रेतोरूपेण प्रथमं जन्म; तस्यैव कुमाररूपेण मातुर्द्वितीयं जन्मोक्तम्; तस्यैव तृतीये जन्मनि वक्तव्ये, प्रयतस्तस्य पितुर्यज्जन्म, तत्तृतीयमिति कथमुच्यते?
Objection: Is it not a fact that for the transmigrating soul the first birth is in the form of semen from the father? And his second birth has been stated to be as a son from the mother. The turn now being for stating the third birth of that very soul (which became the son), why is the birth of the dead father enumerated as the third?

नैष दोषः, पितापुत्रयोरेकात्मत्वस्य विवक्षितत्वात्। सोऽपि पुत्रः स्वपुत्रे भारं निधाय इतः प्रयन्नेव पुनर्जायते यथा पिता। तदन्यत्रोक्तमितरत्राप्युक्तमेव भवतीति मन्यते श्रुतिः। पितापुत्रयोरेकात्मत्वात्॥

Answer: That is not wrong, for the intention is to speak of the identity of the father and the son. That son, too, just like his father, entrusts his responsibility to his son (in his own turn) and then departing from here takes birth immediately after. The Upaniṣad thinks that this fact which is stated with regard to another (viz the father) is implied here (with regard to the son) also; for the father and the son are identical.


❚❚

As to this it has been said by sage (Vāma-deva):
“Even while in the womb (garbha), I knew (anu avedam) the births of all the deities. A hundred iron fortified cities (purs, prior city-like bodies, KathU.2.2.1) had bound (arakṣan, protected yet bound) me down (adhas).
(Knowing what I know, the source of all these deities as but myself:)
Like a hawk (śyena) forcefully I am freed (nir-adīyam, am delivered out by this knowledge).”
Indeed, Vāma-deva even while lying in the womb spoke (knew) in this way.
As to this it has been said by sage (Vāma-deva) (तद् उक्तम् ऋषिणा):
“Even while in the womb (garbha) (गर्भे नु सन्), I knew (anu avedam) the births of all the deities (अनु एषाम् अवेदम् अहं देवानां जनिमानि विश्वा). A hundred iron fortified cities (purs, prior city-like bodies) (शतं मा पुरः आयसीः) had bound (protected yet bound) me down (अरक्षन् अधः).
(Knowing what I know:) Like a hawk (śyena) forcefully I am freed (nir-adīyam, am delivered out by this knowledge)” (श्येनः जवसा निरदीयम् इति).
Indeed, Vāma-deva even while lying in the womb (गर्भे एव एतद् शयानः वाम-देवः) spoke (knew) in this way (एवम् उवाच).
एवं संसरन्नवस्थाभिव्यक्तित्रयेण जन्ममरणप्रबन्धारूढः सर्वो लोकः संसारसमुद्रे निपतितः कथञ्चिद्यदा श्रुत्युक्तमात्मानं विजानाति यस्यां कस्यांचिदवस्थायाम्, तदैव मुक्तसर्वसंसारबन्धनः कृतकृत्यो भवतीत्येतद्वस्तु,
Transmigrating in this way, involved in the chain of birth and death through the manifestation of the three states, everyone remains merged in the ocean of this world. If he ever succeeds somehow, in any of the states, to realize the Self as revealed in the Vedas, he becomes freed then and there from all worldly bondages and accomplishes his object.

तत् ऋषिणा मन्त्रेणापि उक्तम् इत्याह – गर्भे नु मातुर्गर्भाशय एव सन्, नु इति वितर्के। अनेकजन्मान्तरभावनापरिपाकवशात् एषां देवानां वागग्न्यादीनां जनिमानि जन्मानि विश्वा विश्वानि सर्वाणि अनु अवेदम् अहम् अहो अनुबुद्धवानस्मीत्यर्थः।
The Upaniṣad says that tat, this fact; uktam, was declared; ṛṣiṇā, by the seer, by the (following) mantra, also; ‘Garbhe nu san, while still in the womb, of my mother – the indeclinable word nu implies deliberation; by virtue of the fruition of my meditations in many previous births, aham, I; anu avedam, knew, i.e. had the knowledge of; viśvā janimāni, all the births; eṣām devānām, of these gods – of Speech, Fire, etc. What a good luck!

शतम् अनेकाः बह्व्यः मा मां पुरः आयसीः आयस्यो लोहमय्य इवाभेद्यानि शरीराणीत्यभिप्रायः। अरक्षन् रक्षितवत्यः संसारपाशनिर्गमनात् अधः
Śatam, a hundred, many; āyasīḥ (or rather āyasyaḥ) puraḥ, citadels made of iron, arakṣan mā, kept me guarded; adhas, in the lower worlds; guarded me from getting freed from the meshes of the world. (Or adhas, later on [•Ānanda Giri gives these two alternative explanations of the word adhas occurring in the commentary. There are two readings, adho'dhaḥ and adho'tha.•]);

अथ श्येन इव जालं भित्त्वा जवसा आत्मज्ञानकृतसामर्थ्येन निरदीयं निर्गतोऽस्मि। अहो गर्भ एव शयानो वामदेवः ऋषिः एवमुवाच एतत्

Śyenaḥ, like a hawk; javasā, forcefully, through the power generated by the knowledge of the Self; niradīyam, I came out, by tearing through the net. O! the wonder!’ Vāma-devaḥ, Vāma-deva, the seer; garbhe eva sayānaḥ, while still lying in the womb; uvāca, said; etat, this; evam, in this way.


❚❚

In this way, (Vāma-deva and anyone else who) has this knowledge (vidvat) already being beyond (ūrdhva) this distinct (distinctly identified) body (by nature, even before knowledge, like the embryo in the womb) having transcended (utkramya, this body, TaitU.2.8.5) encountering (āptvā, i.e. witnessing) all the desirable things (in the other world, in prior heavens) – became immortal in one’s sacred world (amuṣmin svarge loke, in that limitless brahman, AitU.3.1.4).
In this way, (Vāma-deva and anyone else who) has this knowledge (vidvat) (सः एवं विद्वान्) already being beyond (ūrdhva) this distinct (distinctly identified) body (by nature, even before knowledge) (अस्मात् शरीर-भेदात् ऊर्ध्वः) having transcended (this body) (utkramya (उत्क्रम्य), after encountering (āptvā, i.e. witnessing) all the desirable things (in the other world, in prior heavens) (सर्वान् कामान् आप्त्वा) – became immortal in one’s sacred world (amuṣmin svarge loke, in that limitless brahman) (अमुष्मिन् स्वर्गे लोके अ-मृतः समभवत् समभवत्).
सः वामदेव ऋषिः यथोक्तमात्मानम् एवं विद्वान् अस्मात् शरीरभेदात् शरीरस्य अविद्यापरिकल्पितस्य आयसवदनिर्भेद्यस्य जननमरणाद्यनेकानर्थशताविष्टशरीरप्रबन्धस्य परमात्मज्ञानामृतोपयोगजनितवीर्यकृतभेदात् शरीरोत्पत्तिबीजाविद्यादिनिमित्तोपमर्दहेतोः शरीरविनाशादित्यर्थः।
Saḥ, he, the seer Vāma-deva; evam vidvān, having known thus, known the Self as spoken of earlier; asmāt śarīra-bhedāt, after the destruction of this body – of this body that is conjured up by ignorance, that is impenetrable like iron; on the dissolution of the bondage of the bodies – subject to hundreds of multifarious evils consisting in birth, death, etc. – through the power generated by the tasting of the nectar of knowledge of the supreme Self; that is to say, on the destruction of the body following the destruction of such causes as ignorance that are the seeds of the creation of the body;

ऊर्ध्वः परमात्मभूतः सन् अधोभवात्संसारात् उत्क्रम्य ज्ञानावद्योतितामलसर्वात्मभावमापन्नः सन् अमुष्मिन् यथोक्ते अजरेऽमरेऽमृतेऽभये सर्वज्ञेऽपूर्वेऽनपरेऽनन्तरेऽबाह्ये प्रज्ञानामृतैकरसे स्वर्गे लोके स्वस्मिन्नात्मनि स्वे स्वरूपे अमृतः समभवत् आत्मज्ञानेन पूर्वमाप्तकामतया जीवन्नेव सर्वान् कामान् आप्त्वा इत्यर्थः।
He ūrdhvaḥ (san), having already become identified with the supreme Self; (then) utkramya, having ascended higher up as compared with the lowly worldly state, becoming established in the state of the pure, all-pervasive Self, shining with knowledge; amuṣmin, in that Reality, which was declared as ageless, deathless, immortal, fearless, and omniscient, which has no cause or effect; inside or outside, which is of the nature of the unalloyed nectar of consciousness; he became merged like the blowing out of a lamp. He samabhavat, became; a-mṛtaḥ, immortal; svarge loke, in his own Self, in his own reality; sarvān kāmān āptvā, after the attainment of all desires; that is to say, after having got all the desirable things, even earlier (when still living), by virtue of his becoming desireless through the knowledge of the Self.

द्विर्वचनं सफलस्य सोदाहरणस्य आत्मज्ञानस्य परिसमाप्तिप्रदर्शनार्थम्॥

The repetition in ‘he became’, is to show the end of the knowledge of the Self together with its fruit and its illustration.

Go to Top ('Home' key on many Windows browsers)

mn.01 mn.02 mn.03 mn.04

ब्रह्मविद्यासाधनकृतसर्वात्मभावफलावाप्तिं वामदेवाद्याचार्यपरम्परया पारम्पर्यश्रुत्यावद्योत्यमानां ब्रह्मवित्परिषद्यत्यन्तप्रसिद्धाम् उपलभमाना मुमुक्षवो ब्राह्मणा अधुनातनाः ब्रह्म जिज्ञासवः अनित्यात्साध्यसाधनलक्षणात्संसारात् आ जीवभावाद्व्याविवृत्सवो विचारयन्तः अन्योन्यं पृच्छन्ति। कथम्? –
There are Brāhmaṇas of modern times who crave for emancipation, hanker after the knowledge of Brahman, and realize that the achievement of identity with the Self of all follows from the disciplines for the knowledge of Brahman, as revealed by the Vedas through the succession of teachers like Vāma-deva and very well known in the councils of the knowers of Brahman. (These Brāhmaṇas) becoming desirous of desisting from the impermanent world of ends and means, inclusive of being born as limited souls, ask one another, thus, while engaged in deliberation: ‘kaḥ ayam ātmā, which is this Self?’ How do they ask?


❚❚

Who is the one we worship (upāsmahe) as this ātman (our self)? Which of the two is that ātman (the ātman who is reborn into the father’s, mother’s and this body, and thinks its self as the waker, dreamer and deep sleeper, AitU.1.3.12 or this brahman, AitU.1.3.13, which sage Vāma-deva knew, AitU.2.1.5–6; KathU.1.2.16 & KathU.1.3.1)? Is it (the first one, the individual jīva-ātman identified with each one of the organs of sensing and acting) by which one sees, hears, smells, speaks, or tastes sweet and sour?
Who is the one we worship as this ātman (our self) (कः अयम् आत्मा इति वयम् उपास्महे)? (The ātman who is reborn or this brahman:) Which of the two is that ātman (कतरः सः आत्मा)? Is it (the first one, the individual jīva-ātman identified with each one of the organs of sensing and acting) by which one sees (येन वा पश्यति), hears, smells, speaks, or tastes sweet and sour? (येन वा शृणोति येन वा गन्धान् आजिघ्रति येन वा वाचं व्याकरोति येन वा स्वादु च अ-स्वादु च विजानाति)?

यमात्मानम् अयमात्मा इति साक्षात् वयमुपास्महे कः स आत्मा इति;
The Self which vayam upāsmahe, we worship; directly ayam ātmā iti, as this Self; kaḥ, which is It?

यं चात्मानमयमात्मेति साक्षादुपासीनो वामदेवः अमृतः समभवत्; तमेव वयमप्युपास्महे को नु खलु स आत्मेति एवं जिज्ञासापूर्वमन्योन्यं पृच्छताम् अतिक्रान्तविशेषविषयश्रुतिसंस्कारजनिता स्मृतिरजायत –
And we worship that very Self, by meditating on which directly as ‘This is the Self’, Vāma-deva became immortal. Which indeed is that Self? When they were thus questioning one another with such eagerness to know, then from the impressions formed by having heard about the (two) specific entities dealt with earlier, there flashed in their minds the memory that here in the text –

तम् ‘प्रपदाभ्यां प्रापद्यत ब्रह्मेमं पुरुषम्’ ‘स एतमेव सीमानं विदार्य एतया द्वारा प्रापद्यत’ एतमेव पुरुषं द्वे ब्रह्मणी इतरेतरप्रातिकूल्येन प्रतिपन्ने – इति। ते चास्य पिण्डस्यात्मभूते। तयोरन्यतर आत्मोपास्यो भवितुमर्हति।
Brahman [•Prāṇa, the inferior Brahman, Hiraṇya-garbha.•] entered into this person through the two ends of the feet’, and ‘Having split up this end, He entered through this door’ (AitU.1.3.12), have been mentioned two Brahmans which have entered into this very person from the opposite sides. And these two are the souls in this body. One of these selves is fit to be worshipped.

योऽत्रोपास्यः, कतरः स आत्मा इति विशेषनिर्धारणार्थं पुनरन्योन्यं पप्रच्छुर्विचारयन्तः। पुनस्तेषां विचारयतां विशेषविचारणास्पदविषया मतिरभूत्।
While still engaged in discussion, they again asked one another with a view to determining clearly; saḥ ātmā, the Self that was to be worshipped; kataraḥ, out of the two. As they were discussing, there arose in them another thought regarding the one that should be the object of close enquiry.

कथम्? द्वे वस्तुनी अस्मिन्पिण्डे उपलभ्येते – अनेकभेदभिन्नेन करणेन येनोपलभते, यश्चैक उपलभते, करणान्तरोपलब्धिविषयस्मृतिप्रतिसन्धानात्।
How? Two entities are perceived in this body: One is the instrument (Prāṇa), diversified into many forms, through which one perceives; and the other is the perceiver, inferable from the fact of the occurrence of recognition through memory of what was perceived with different senses.
[•A man, with eyes plucked out, remembers the colour he had perceived before with his eyes. So also he thinks, ‘I who saw before am hearing now.’ This is impossible unless the perceiver is the same in the different situations.•]

तत्र न तावत् येनोपलभते स आत्मा भवितुमर्हति। केन पुनरुपलभत इति, उच्यते – येन वा चक्षुर्भूतेन रूपं पश्यति, येन वा शृणोति श्रोत्रभूतेन शब्दम्, येन वा घ्राणभूतेन गन्धानाजिघ्रति, येन वा वाक्करणभूतेन वाचं नामात्मिकां व्याकरोति गौरश्व इत्येवमाद्याम्, साध्वसाध्विति च, येन वा जिह्वाभूतेन स्वादु च अस्वादु च विजानाति इति॥

Of these two, that through which one perceives cannot be the Self. Through what, again, does one perceive? That is being stated: Yena vā paśyati, is it that by which, transformed as eye, one sees colour; yena vā, that by which, transformed as the ear; śṛṇoti, one hears sound; yena vā, also, that by which, transformed as the sense of smell; ājighrati gandhān, one smells the odours; yena vā, and that by which, transformed as the organ of speech; one vyākaroti vācam, utters speech, consisting of names, such as ‘cow’, ‘horse’, etc., and ‘good’, ‘bad’, etc.; yena vā, and that by which, transformed as the sense of taste; vijānāti, one perceives; svādu ca a-svādu ca, the sweet and the sour (tastes).


❚❚

(Who is the one we worship as this ātman:) Is it this heart, the mind? Or (any of its thoughts, such as) sentience, command, erudition (vijñāna), intellection (prajñāna), retentiveness, perception, fortitude, thinking, depression (jūti), memory, impression (saṅkalpa), determination, vitality (asu, the automatic system for breathing, etc.), desire or passion?
(No) All these are only names (nāma-dheyas, BrhU.1.4.7, indirect names of brahman; PrasU.6.4–5 and MunU.3.2.8) belonging to intellection (prajñāna, whose authority is only one’s opinion).
(Who is the one we worship as this ātman:) Is it this heart (यद् एतद् हृदयम्), the mind (मनस् च एतद्)? Or (any of its thoughts, such as) sentience, command (संज्ञानम् आज्ञानम्), erudition, intellection (विज्ञानं प्रज्ञानम्), retentiveness, perception, fortitude (मेधा दृष्टिः धृतिः), depression, memory, impression (जूतिः स्मृतिः सङ्कल्पः), determination, vitality (क्रतुः असुः), desire or passion (कामः वशः इति)?
(No) All these are only names (nāma-dheyas, indirect names of brahman) belonging to intellection (prajñāna, whose authority is only one’s opinion) (सर्वाणि एव एतानि प्रज्ञानस्य नाम-धेयानि भवन्ति).
किं पुनस्तदेकमनेकधा भिन्नं करणमिति, उच्यते।
Which, again, is that one organ that has become diversely differentiated? That is being answered:

यद् उक्तं पुरस्तात् प्रजानां रेतो हृदयं हृदयस्य रेतो मनः मनसा सृष्टा आपश्च वरुणश्च हृदयान्मनो मनसश्चन्द्रमाः, तदेव एतद् धृदयं मनश्च, एकमेव तदनेकधा।
Etat, it is; hṛdayam manaḥ ca, the heart and the mind
[•The entity you asked about is the same as was referred to earlier as the heart (i.e. intellect), or the mind. This entity is the Prāṇa that assumes various aspects. It entered through the tip of the feet, whereas Brahman entered through the crown of the head.•];
yat, that were spoken of earlier in ‘The essence (i.e. the product) of all beings is the heart; the essence of the heart is the mind; by the mind was created water and Varuṇa; from the heart came the mind; and from the mind, Moon.’

एतेनान्तःकरणेनैकेन चक्षुर्भूतेन रूपं पश्यति, श्रोत्रभूतेन शृणोति, घ्राणभूतेन जिघ्रति, वाग्भूतेन वदति, जिह्वाभूतेन रसयति, स्वेनैव विकल्पनारूपेण मनसा सङ्कल्पयति, हृदयरूपेणाध्यवस्यति।
That very thing, which is but one, has become multiformed. Through this single internal organ, as transformed into the eye, one sees colour; through this, transformed into the ear, one hears; through this, transformed into the sense of smell, one smells; through this, transformed into the sense of taste, one tastes; through this very one, in its aspect as the organ of deliberation, one deliberates; and in its aspect as the heart (i.e. the intellect), one decides.

तस्मात्सर्वकरणविषयव्यापारकमेकमिदं करणं सर्वोपलब्ध्यर्थमुपलब्धुः। तथा च कौषीतकिनाम् ‘प्रज्ञया वाचं समारुह्य वाचा सर्वाणि नामान्याप्नोति प्रज्ञया चक्षुः समारुह्य चक्षुषा सर्वाणि रूपाण्याप्नोति’ (कौ. उ. ३-६) इत्यादि।
Therefore this is the one single organ which acts with regard to all objects of the senses, so that the perceiver may perceive everything. Similar is the text of the Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad: ‘Becoming identified with the organ of speech through the intellect (as reflecting the consciousness of the Self), the Self reaches (i.e. becomes identified with) the names etc.’ (Kau. III. 6).
[•The intellect becomes transformed into the organ of speech, and speech into words. The Self, too, through superimposed self-identification, seems to assume those forms, though It still remains as their illuminator.•]

वाजसनेयके च – ‘मनसा ह्येव पश्यति मनसा शृणोति’ (BrhU.1.5.3), ‘हृदयेन हि रूपाणि विजानाति’ (BrhU.3.9.20) इत्यादि। तस्माद्धृदयमनोवाच्यस्य सर्वोपलब्धिकरणत्वं प्रसिद्धम्।
And in the Vāja-saneyaka occur these: ‘It is through the mind that one hears’ (BrhUEng.1.5.3), ‘for one knows colours through the heart’ (BrhUEng.3.9.20), etc. Accordingly, the entity that is called the heart and the mind is well known as the agent producing all perceptions.

तदात्मकश्च प्राणः ‘यो वै प्राणः, सा प्रज्ञा या वै प्रज्ञा स प्राणः’ (कौ. उ. ३-३) इति हि ब्राह्मणम्। करणसंहतिरूपश्च प्राण इत्यवोचाम प्राणसंवादादौ।
And the Prāṇa consists of these two, for there occurs the brāhmaṇa text: ‘That which is the Prāṇa is the intellect; that which is the intellect is the Prāṇa (Kau. III. 3). And we said in the texts dealing with the conversations with the Prāṇa is of the form of a combination of the organs.

तस्माद्यत्पद्भ्यां प्रापद्यत, तद्ब्रह्म तदुपलब्धुरुपलब्धिकरणत्वेन गुणभूतत्वान्नैव तद्वस्तु ब्रह्म उपास्य आत्मा भवितुमर्हति। पारिशेष्याद्यस्योपलब्धुरुपलब्ध्यर्था एतस्य हृदयमनोरूपस्य करणस्य वृत्तयो वक्ष्यमाणाः, स उपलब्धा उपास्य आत्मा नोऽस्माकं भवितुमर्हतीति निश्चयं कृतवन्तः।
Therefore the entity, (in the form of which) Brahman entered through the feet, cannot be the Self to be worshipped, since it is a subsidiary thing, being an instrument of perception for the perceiver. As a last resort, they arrived at this certitude: ‘That witnessing Self is worthy of worship by us, for whose perception the functions of this instrument, in its aspects as the heart and the mind, are being stated.’

तदन्तःकरणोपाधिस्थस्योपलब्धुः प्रज्ञानरूपस्य ब्रह्मण उपलब्ध्यर्था या अन्तःकरणवृत्तयो बाह्यान्तर्वर्तिविषयविषयाः, ता इमा उच्यन्ते –
The functions of that inner organ – with regard to internal and external objects – which take place for bearing witness to the witnessing Brahman
[•Brahman cannot be perceived since It is not an object of cognition, and It is a attributeless. Still, without being objectified, It is perceivable as the witness of mental states – A.G.•]
that is consciousness by nature and that exists in the midst of Its limiting adjunct, viz. the internal organ, are (these that are) being enumerated:

संज्ञानं संज्ञप्तिः चेतनभावः; आज्ञानम् आज्ञप्तिः ईश्वरभावः; विज्ञानं कलादिपरिज्ञानम्; प्रज्ञानं प्रज्ञप्तिः प्रज्ञता; मेधा ग्रन्थधारणसामर्थ्यम्; दृष्टिः इन्द्रियद्वारा सर्वविषयोपलब्धिः; धृतिः धारणम् अवसन्नानां शरीरेन्द्रियाणां ययोत्तम्भनं भवति; ‘धृत्या शरीरमुद्वहन्ति’ इति हि वदन्ति; मतिः मननम्; मनीषा तत्र स्वातन्त्र्यम्; जूतिः चेतसो रुजादिदुःखित्वभावः; स्मृतिः स्मरणम्; सङ्कल्पः शुक्लकृष्णादिभावेन सङ्कल्पनं रूपादीनाम्; क्रतुः अध्यवसायः; असुः प्राणनादिजीवनक्रियानिमित्ता वृत्तिः; कामः असंनिहितविषयाकाङ्क्षा तृष्णा; वशः स्त्रीव्यतिकराद्यभिलाषः; इति एवमाद्या अन्तःकरणवृत्तयः
Sañjñānam, sentience, the state of consciousness; ājñānam, rulership, the state of lordliness; vijñānam, (secular) knowledge of arts etc.; prajñānam, presence of mind; medhā, ability to understand and retain the purport of books; dṛṣṭiḥ, perception, of all objects through the senses; dhṛtiḥ, fortitude, by which the drooping body and senses are buoyed up – for they say, ‘By fortitude they buoyed up the body’; matiḥ, thinking; manīṣā, independent thinking (genius); jūtiḥ, mental suffering, owing to disease etc.; smṛtiḥ, memory; saṅkalpaḥ, ascertainment, of colours etc. as white, black, etc.; kratuḥ, resolution; asuḥ, any function calculated to sustain life’s activity, such as breathing etc.; kāmaḥ, desire for a remote object, hankering; vaśaḥ, passion for the company of women; iti, etc., and other functions of the inner organ.

उपलब्धुरुपलब्ध्यर्थत्वाच्छुद्धप्रज्ञानरूपस्य ब्रह्मण उपाधिभूतास्तदुपाधिजनितगुणनामधेयानि संज्ञानादीनि सर्वाण्येवैतानि प्रज्ञप्तिमात्रस्य प्रज्ञानस्य नामधेयानि भवन्ति, न स्वतः साक्षात्। तथा चोक्तम् ‘प्राणन्नेव प्राणो नाम भवति’ (BrhU.1.4.7) इत्यादि॥

Since these are the means for the perception of the witness who is mere Consciousness, they are the limiting adjuncts of Brahman that is pure Consciousness, and therefore sañjñāna etc. become the indirect names of Brahman, created by limiting adjuncts. Sarvāṇi eva etāni, all these verily; bhavanti, become; nāma-dheyāni, the names; prajñānasya, of Consciousness (prajñapti-mātra); but not so naturally and directly. And so has it been said, ‘When It does the function of living. It is called the vital force’ (BrhUEng.1.4.7) etc.


❚❚

This (ātman) is (essentially) brahman (but as described above is a-para brahman, the cosmic envisioner of this universe, named Hiraṇya-garbha, AitU.1.1.2 thru 1.3.12); and named Indra and Prajā-pati; and is all these deities; the five great elements: earth, wind, space, water and light; all these small assorted things; various seeds (and those born from them); as well as those born from egg, born from womb, born from moisture, born from earth; horses, cows, people and elephants; any creature that runs, flies or stays put.
All this that is guided by consciousness (prajñā-netra), (whose reality) is fixed (pratiṣṭhita, is based – is born, survives and resolves) in consciousness (prajñāna). This universe and person (loka, what is seen and what sees), has consciousness as its eye, is (nothing but) the consciousness (prajñā) as its basis (pratiṣṭhā). (Therefore) Consciousness (prajñāna) is brahman (the entire reality, the very nature of everything).
This (ātman) is (essentially) brahman (but as described above is a-para brahman, the cosmic envisioner of this universe, named Hiraṇya-garbha) (एषः ब्रह्म); and named Indra and Prajā-pati (एषः इन्द्रः एषः प्रजा-पतिः); and is all these deities (एते सर्वे देवाः); the five great elements: earth, wind, space, water and light (इमानि च पञ्च महा-भूतानि पृथिवी वायुः आकाशः आपः ज्योतींषि इति); all these small assorted things (इमानि च क्षुद्र-मिश्राणि इव);
various seeds (and those born from them) (बीजानि इतराणि च इतराणि च); as well as those born from egg, born from womb, born from moisture, born from earth (अण्ड-जानि च जारु-जानि च स्वेद-जानि च उद्भिद्-जानि च); horses, cows, people and elephants (अश्वाः गावः पुरुषाः हस्तिनः); any creature that runs, flies or stays put (यद् किंच इदं प्राणि जङ्गमं च पतत्रि च यद् च स्थावरम्).
All this that is guided by consciousness (prajñā-netra) (सर्वं तद् प्रज्ञा-नेत्रम्), (whose reality) is fixed (pratiṣṭhita, is based – is born, survives and resolves) in consciousness (prajñāna) (प्रज्ञाने प्रतिष्ठितं). This universe and person (loka, what is seen and what sees) is guided by Consciousness (or has Consciousness as its eye) (प्रज्ञा-नेत्रः लोकः). Consciousness (prajñā) is its basis (pratiṣṭhā) (प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठा). (Therefore) Consciousness (prajñāna) is brahman (the entire reality, the very nature of everything) (प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म).
एषः प्रज्ञानरूप आत्मा ब्रह्म अपरं सर्वशरीरस्थः प्राणः प्रज्ञात्मा अन्तःकरणोपाधिष्वनुप्रविष्टो जलभेदगतसूर्यप्रतिबिम्बवत् हिरण्यगर्भः प्राणः प्रज्ञात्मा।
Eṣaḥ, this One, the Self, which is essentially Consciousness; is brahma, Brahman, the inferior one (who is Hiraṇya-garbha and) who as Prāṇa (possessed of the power of action) and the conscious soul (possessed of the power of knowledge) exists in (the sum total of) all the bodies (i.e. in the cosmic gross body) after having entered into all the limiting adjuncts of the internal organs (i.e. into the cosmic subtle body) like the reflection of the sun on diverse waters. He is the power of action and knowledge (in the individual).

एष एव इन्द्रः गुणात्, देवराजो वा।
Eṣaḥ, this One; is verily indraḥ, Indra, who is called so because He possesses the qualities (mentioned earlier in AitU.1.3.13-14); or ‘Indra’ means the lord of the gods.

एष प्रजापतिः यः प्रथमजः शरीरी; यतो मुखादिनिर्भेदद्वारेणाग्न्यादयो लोकपाला जाताः, स प्रजापतिरेष एव। येऽपि एते अग्न्यादयः सर्वे देवा एष एव। इमानि च सर्वशरीरोपादानभूतानि पञ्च पृथिवी-आदीनि महाभूतानि अन्नान्नादत्वलक्षणानि एतानि।
Eṣaḥ, this One; is prajā-patiḥ, Prajā-pati (Virāṭ) who is the first embodied Being.
[•Hiraṇya-garbha identifies Himself with the cosmic subtle body, but Virāṭ with the cosmic gross body•]
That Prajā-pati, from whom the presiding deities of the organs, viz. Fire and others, were born after the formation of the cavity of the mouth etc., is verily this One. And ete sarve devāḥ, all these gods, viz. Fire and others, that there are, are but this One; ca, and; imāni pañca mahā-bhūtāni, these five great elements; viz. etāni, these – starting with earth – which are the materials of all the bodies and which constitute the foods and the eaters;

किञ्च, इमानि च क्षुद्रमिश्राणि क्षुद्रैरल्पकैर्मिश्राणि, इव-शब्दः अनर्थकः, सर्पादीनि। बीजानि कारणानि इतराणि चेतराणि च द्वैराश्येन निर्दिश्यमानानि।
Besides, ca imāni, these also, e.g. snakes etc.; kṣudra-miśrāṇi iva, together with the tiny creatures – the word iva being meaningless; and which are bījāni, the seeds, causes (of others); ca itarāṇi itarāṇi, as well as those others and others, that are mentionable in pairs (e.g. the moving and the stationary).

कानि तानि? उच्यन्ते – अण्डजानि पक्ष्यादीनि, जारुजानि जरायुजानि मनुष्यादीनि, स्वेदजानि यूकादीनि, उद्भिज्जानि च वृक्षादीनि।
Which are they? They are being enumerated: aṇḍa-jāni, born of eggs – birds and others; jāru-jāni, born of wombs – men and others; śveda-jāni, born of moisture – lice etc.; and udbhij-jāni, born of earth – e.g. trees etc.;

अश्वाः गावः पुरुषाः हस्तिनः अन्यच्च यत्किंचेदं प्राणि
Aśvāḥ, horses; gāvaḥ, cattle; puruṣāḥ, human beings; hastinaḥ, elephants; yat kiñca idam, and whatever living creature there may be.

किं तत्? जङ्गमं यच्चलति पद्भ्यां गच्छति; यच्च पतत्रि आकाशेन पतनशीलम्; यच्च स्थावरम् अचलम्;
Which are they? Whichever is jaṅgamam, moving on feet; and whichever is patatri, flying in the sky; and whatever is sthāvaram, motionless – all that is but this One.

सर्वं तत् अशेषतः प्रज्ञानेत्रम्, प्रज्ञप्तिः प्रज्ञा, तच्च ब्रह्मैव, नीयतेऽनेनेति नेत्रम्, प्रज्ञा नेत्रं यस्य तदिदं प्रज्ञानेत्रम्;
Tat sarvam, all that, without exception; is prajñā-netram, made to exist by Consciousness – (the phrase being derived thus): Prajñā is Consciousness that is the same as Brahman; netra is that by which one is dowered with substance, or that by which one is impelled (to one’s natural activity): therefore that which has Consciousness as the giver of its substance or as its impeller is prajñā-netram.

प्रज्ञाने ब्रह्मण्युत्पत्तिस्थितिलयकालेषु प्रतिष्ठितम्, प्रज्ञाश्रयमित्यर्थः।
Prajñāne pratiṣṭhitam, on Consciousness it is established, that is to say, it is supported by Brahman during creation, existence, and dissolution.

प्रज्ञानेत्रो लोकः पूर्ववत्; प्रज्ञाचक्षुर्वा सर्व एव लोकः। प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठा सर्वस्य जगतः।
The sentence, ‘prajñā-netraḥ lokaḥ, the universe has Consciousness as its impeller’, is to be understood as before; or the meaning is that all the universe has got consciousness as its netra, eye (i.e. the source of revelation). Prajñā, Consciousness; is pratiṣṭhā, the support, of the whole universe.
[•Consciousness is self-revealing and is not dependent on any other factor for the revelation of Itself or of others. Or the sentence may mean that Consciousness is the one reality in which all phenomenal things end, just as the superimposed snake etc. end in their bases, the rope etc., after the dawn of knowledge.•]

तस्मात् प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म
Therefore prajñānam brahma, Consciousness is Brahman.

तदेतत्प्रत्यस्तमितसर्वोपाधिविशेषं सत् निरञ्जनं निर्मलं निष्क्रियं शान्तम् एकम् अद्वयं ‘नेति नेति’ (BrhU.3.9.26) इति सर्वविशेषापोहसंवेद्यं सर्वशब्दप्रत्ययागोचरं
That Entity, thus dealt with, when freed from all distinctions created by the limiting adjuncts, is without stain, without taint, without action, quiescent, one without a second, to be known as ‘Not this, not this’ (BrhUEng.3.9.26), by the elimination of all attributes, and (It is) beyond all words and thoughts.

तदत्यन्तविशुद्धप्रज्ञोपाधिसम्बन्धेन सर्वज्ञमीश्वरं सर्वसाधारणाव्याकृतजगद्बीजप्रवर्तकं नियन्तृत्वादन्तर्यामिसंज्ञं भवति।
That very Entity which is the omniscient God – because of the association with the limiting adjunct of very pure intelligence – and is the ordainer of the common seed of all unmanifested universe, assumes the name of antar-yāmī (the Inner Controller) by virtue of being the Guide.

तदेव व्याकृतजगद्बीजभूतबुद्ध्यात्माभिमानलक्षणं हिरण्यगर्भसंज्ञं भवति।
That Entity Itself assumes the name of Hiraṇya-garbha, who identifies Himself with (cosmic) intelligence which is the seed of the manifested world.

तदेव अन्तरण्डोद्भूतप्रथमशरीरोपाधिमत् विराट्प्रजापतिसंज्ञं भवति।
That Entity Itself gets the name of Virāṭ, Prajā-pati, who has as His limiting adjunct the (gross, cosmic) body born first within the cosmic egg;

तदुद्भूताग्न्याद्युपाधिमत् देवतासंज्ञं भवति।
And It comes to be known as the deities, Fire, etc., by assuming their (respective) limiting adjuncts (viz speech etc.) born from that egg.

तथा विशेषशरीरोपाधिष्वपि ब्रह्मादिस्तम्बपर्यन्तेषु तत्तन्नामरूपलाभो ब्रह्मणः।
Similarly, Brahman gets the respective names and forms as conditioned by the divergent bodies, ranging from that of Brahmā to that of a clump of grass.

तदेवैकं सर्वोपाधिभेदभिन्नं सर्वैः प्राणिभिस्तार्किकैश्च सर्वप्रकारेण ज्ञायते विकल्प्यते च अनेकधा। ‘एतमेके वदन्त्यग्निं मनुमन्ये प्रजापतिम्। इन्द्रमेकेऽपरे प्राणमपरे ब्रह्म शाश्वतम्’ (मनु. १२-१२३) इत्याद्या स्मृतिः॥

It is the same Entity that has become diversified according to the variety of the limiting adjuncts and is known in every way and is thought of multifariously by all creatures as well as the logicians. And there are the Smṛti texts, ‘Some call this very Entity Fire, some call It Manu, and some Prajā-pati. Some call It Indra, while others call It Prāṇa and still others, the eternal Brahman’, etc. (M. XII. 123).


❚❚

The one who takes oneself (ātman) as this conscious being (prajña) thus transcends this world (loka, the seen and the seer), after having encountered (āptvā, i.e. witnessed) all desirable things in the other world (in prior heavens), this one now attains the (timeless) immortality (that is brahman).
The one who takes oneself (ātman) as this conscious being (prajña) (सः एतेन प्रज्ञेन आत्मना) thus transcends this world (loka, the seen and the seer) (अस्मात् लोकात् उत्क्रम्य), after having encountered (āptvā, i.e. witnessed) all desirable things in the other world (in prior heavens) (अमुष्मिन् स्वर्गे लोके सर्वान् कामान् आप्त्वा), this one now attains the (timeless) immortality (that is brahman) (अ-मृतः समभवत् समभवत्).
वामदेवोऽन्यो वा एवं यथोक्तं ब्रह्म वेद प्रज्ञेनात्मना, येनैव प्रज्ञेन आत्मना पूर्वे विद्वांसोऽमृता अभूवन् तथा अयमपि विद्वान् एतेन एव प्रज्ञेन आत्मना अस्मात् लोकात् उत्क्रम्य-इत्यादि व्याख्यातम्।
Saḥ, he, Vāma-deva, or somebody else, knew thus the Brahman as described, through the Self that is Consciousness – through that very conscious Self by which the seers of old became immortal. Similarly, this enlightened one, too, etena prajñena ātmanā, through (i.e. in identification with) this (very) Self that is Consciousness; asmāt lokāt utkramya, ascending higher up from this world – the portion starting from here was explained before (AitU.2.1.6).

अस्माल्लोकादुत्क्रम्य अमुष्मिन् स्वर्गे लोके सर्वान्कामान् आप्त्वा अमृतः समभवत्समभवद् इत्योमिति॥

Ascending higher up from this world and sarvān kāmān āptvā, attaining all the desires; amuṣmin svarge loke, in that heavenly world; (he) samabhavat, became; a-mṛtaḥ, immortal; samabhavat, (he) became (immortal).

Go to Top ('Home' key on many Windows browsers)

🔗  ओं, पूर्ण॒म् अदः॒ पूर्ण॒म् इदं॒ पूर्णा॒त् पूर्ण॒म् उद॒च्यते।
पूर्ण॒स्य पूर्ण॒म् आदा॒य पूर्ण॒म् एवावशि॒ष्यते।
ओं शा॒न्तिः शा॒न्तिः शा॒न्तिः॥

Om; pūrṇa, adas, pūrṇa, idam, pūrna, pūrṇa, ud-√añc.
pūrṇa, pūrṇa, ādāya, pūrṇa, eva, ava-√śiṣ.
Om, śānti, śānti, śānti.

॥इति ऐतरेय-उपनिषद् समाप्ता॥