Sorry, your browser does not support JavaScript!
Taittirīya Upaniṣad
with शाङ्कर-भाष्यम्

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

Bhāṣya Intro 1 Śikṣāvallī 2 Brahmānandavallī 3 Bhṛguvallī

Format by A.K. Aruna, 2022 ver.5.0: 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 (
A link marked with a 🔗 will open the matching English translation.

Taittirīya-Upaniṣad, from the Kṛṣna-Yajur Veda, consists of brāhmaṇa (prose text) with some ślokas (verses) interspersed. It is a highly regarded Upaniṣad since it completely presents the best qualifications for a student of this teaching, the definition of the ultimate reality that is at once the cause and sustenance of the universe and the very nature of oneself, and transmission of this fulfilling teaching from a father, Varuṇa, to his son, Bhṛgu. These topics are covered in three chapters called vallīs, and each chapter is divided into sections called anuvākas. Some of these anuvākas are further divided by certain editors into sub-sections that here and there appear to arbitrarily divide a single idea, sentence, or verse into two. The chanting of this Upaniṣad is popular, and perhaps the sounds of the anuvākas may be why they are divided in this way.

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, or click the following logo:
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Here chanted slowly by Narasimha Bhatta (net access to YouTube required):
Śīkshā Vallī chanting from net
or from my pc: Narasimha Bhatta chanting

Brahmānanda Vallī chanting from net
or from my pc: Narasimha Bhatta chanting

Bhṛgu Vallī chanting from net
or from my pc: Narasimha Bhatta chanting

🔗  ओं, शं नो॑ मि॒त्रः शं वरु॑णः। शं नो॑ भवत्व् अर्य॒मा। शं न॒ इन्द्रो॒ बृह॒स्-पतिः॑। शं नो॒ विष्णु॑-रुरु-क्र॒मः। नमो॒ ब्रह्म॑णे। नम॑स् ते वायो। त्वम् ए॒व प्र॒त्यक्षं॒ ब्रह्मा॑सि। त्वाम् ए॒व प्र॒त्यक्षं॒ ब्रह्म॑ वदिष्यामि। ऋ॒तं व॑दिष्यामि। स॒त्यं व॑दिष्यामि। तन् माम् अ॑वतु। तद् व॒क्तार॑म् अवतु। अव॑तु॒ माम्। अव॑तु व॒क्तार᳚म्। ओं शान्तिः॒ शान्तिः॒ शान्तिः॑॥
Om; śam, asmad, mitra, śam, varuṇa. Śam, asmad, √bhū, aryaman. Śam, asmad, indra, brhas-pati. Śam, asmad, viṣṇu-ruru-krama. Namas, brahman. Namas, yuṣmad, vāyu. Yuṣmad, eva, pratyakṣa, brahman, √as. Yuṣmad, eva, pratyakṣa, brahman, √vad. Ṛta, √vad. Satya, √vad. Tad, asmad, √av. Tad, vaktṛ, √av. √Av, asmad. √Av, vaktṛ. Om, śānti, śānti, śānti.

यस्माज्जातं जगत्सर्वं यस्मिन्नेव प्रलीयते।
येनेदं धार्यते चैव तस्मै ज्ञानात्मने नमः॥१॥
Salutation to That Brahman. which is of the nature of consciousness, from which the whole universe was born, into which it gets dissolved, and by which it is sustained.

यैरिमे गुरुभिः पूर्वं पदवाक्यप्रमाणतः।
व्याख्याताः सर्ववेदान्तास्तान्नित्यं प्रणतोऽस्म्यहम्॥२॥
I bow down ever before those adorable Teachers by whom was explained all these Upaniṣads in the past, by taking into consideration the words, the sentences, and the means of valid knowledge.

तैत्तिरीयकसारस्य मयाचार्यप्रसादतः।
विस्पष्टार्थरुचीनां हि व्याख्येयं संप्रणीयते॥३॥
With the grace of my Teacher, and for the benefit of those who prefer a clear exposition, I compose this explanation of this Upaniṣad that is the essence of that section of the Vedas, (called) the Taittirīya.

नित्यान्यधिगतानि कर्माणि उपात्तदुरितक्षयार्थानि, काम्यानि च फलार्थिनां पूर्वस्मिन्ग्रन्थे।
Introduction: In the preceding text have been studied
[•The Taittirīya Āraṇyaka of which this Upaniṣad forms a part.•]
the obligatory duties that are meant for diminishing the accumulated sins, and the optional rites that are meant for people craving for results.

इदानीं कर्मोपादानहेतुपरिहाराय ब्रह्मविद्या प्रस्तूयते।
Now is commenced the knowledge of Brahman with a view to eschewing the causes that lead to the performance of karma.
[•Rites, duties, etc., enjoined by scriptures.•]

कर्महेतुः कामः स्यात्, प्रवर्तकत्वात्। आप्तकामानां हि कामाभावे स्वात्मन्यवस्थानात्प्रवृत्त्यनुपपत्तिः। आत्मकामत्वे चाप्तकामता। आत्मा च ब्रह्म। तद्विदो हि परप्राप्तिं वक्ष्यति।
Desire must he the source of karma, since it stimulates action; for no impulsion to activity is possible in the case of those whose desires have been fulfilled, they being then established in their own Self as a result of the absence of desire. And fulfilment of desires follows from the desire for the Self
[•Really speaking, desire relates to the non-Self, and this ceases on the realisation of the Self. Therefore “the desire for the Self” is to be understood as implying an unfettered devotion to the Self with the idea that It alone is the Reality, and nothing else exists.•]
inasmuch as the Self, indeed, is Brahman, and for the knower of Brahman will be declared the attainment of the Highest (TaitU.2.1.1).

अतः अविद्यानिवृत्तौ स्वात्मन्यवस्थानं परप्राप्तिः, ‘अभयं प्रतिष्ठां विन्दते’ (TaitU.2.7.1) ‘एतमानन्दमयमात्मानमुपसङ्क्रामति’ (TaitU.2.8.5) इत्यादि श्रुतेः।
Therefore the continuance in one’s own Self, on the eradication of ignorance, is tantamount to the attainment of the Highest, which fact is supported by such Veda texts as: ‘(When) one gets fearlessly established (in Brahman)’ (TaitU.2.7.1), ‘He attains this self made of bliss’ (TaitU.2.8.5).

काम्यप्रतिषिद्धयोरनारम्भात् आरब्धस्य च उपभोगेन क्षयात् नित्यानुष्ठानेन च प्रत्यवायाभावात् अयत्नत एव स्वात्मन्यवस्थानं मोक्षः।
Objection : May it not be said that emancipation consists in remaining established in one’s own Self without any positive effort – a state that ensues as a consequence of the non-commencement of optional and prohibited activities, the exhaustion through enjoyment of (the results of) karmas that have commenced, and the absence of sin owing to the performance of obligatory karmas.

अथवा, निरतिशयायाः प्रीतेः स्वर्गशब्दवाच्याया कर्महेतुत्वात्कर्मभ्य एव मोक्ष इति चेत्,
Or, (it may be that) emancipation results from the activities themselves, since karmas are the source of that unsurpassable happiness which is called heaven.

न; कर्मानेकत्वात्। अनेकानि हि आरब्धफलानि अनारब्धफलानि च अनेकजन्मान्तरकृतानि विरुद्धफलानि कर्माणि संभवन्ति।
Answer: This cannot be so, because karma is multifarious, and as such, there is the possibility that there are actions – done in many previous births and bearing fruits (in this life) or remaining in abeyance which have opposite results.

अतः तेष्वनारब्धफलानामेकस्मिञ्जन्मन्युपभोगेन क्षयासंभवात् शेषकर्मनिमित्तशरीरारम्भोपपत्तिः। कर्मशेषसद्भावसिद्धिश्च ‘तद्य इह रमणीयचरणाः’ (ChanU.5.10.7) ‘ततः शेषेण’ (आ. ध. २-२-२-३) (गो. स्मृ. ११) इत्यादि श्रुतिस्मृतिशतेभ्यः।
Accordingly, since those of the actions that have not begun to bear fruits (in this life) cannot possibly become exhausted through enjoyment in (this) one single birth, it is reasonable that a fresh body shall be created as a result of the residual fruits of action; and the existence of residual fruits of work is also proved by hundreds of Veda and Smṛti texts such as: ‘Among them, those who were performers of meritorious deeds here, (they will attain good births)’ (ChanU.5.10.7);
[•In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad itself there is an explanation for this. ‘Womb of the righteous’ means the womb of the Brāhmaṇa or of Kṣatriya or of Vaiśya). And the Ācārya has interpreted it accordingly.•]
‘Owing to the residual (results, the soul gets its future birth)’ (Ap.; Gau. 11).

इष्टानिष्टफलानामनारब्धानां क्षयार्थानि नित्यानि इति चेत्,
Objection: The obligatory duties are calculated to consume all the good and bad fruits of actions that are still inoperative.

न; अकरणे प्रत्यवायश्रवणात्। प्रत्यवायशब्दो हि अनिष्टविषयः।
Answer: No, for it is stated that the non-performance (of obligatory duties) entails pratyavāya. And the word pratyavāya means evil consequences.

नित्याकरणनिमित्तस्य प्रत्यवायस्य दुःखरूपस्य आगामिनः परिहारार्थानि नित्यानीत्यभ्युपगमात् न अनारब्धफलकर्मक्षयार्थानि।
Since it is admitted that obligatory duties are meant for warding off evil consequence in the form of a future sorrow, they cannot be meant for consuming actions that have not begun to bear fruit.

यदि नाम अनारब्धफलकर्मक्षयार्थानि नित्यानि कर्माणि, तथाप्यशुद्धमेव क्षपयेयुः; न शुद्धम्, विरोधाभावात्। न हि इष्टफलस्य कर्मणः शुद्धरूपत्वान्नित्यैर्विरोध उपपद्यते। शुद्धाशुद्धयोर्हि विरोधो युक्तः।
Granted, however, that the obligatory duties are capable of dissipating the actions that are yet inoperative, it is only the impure ones that they can sweep away and not the pure ones; for there is no contradiction (between the pure actions and obligatory duties) inasmuch as the actions that have desirable results are pure by nature, and, as such, they cannot be logically opposed to obligatory duties, the pure and the impure alone being reasonably opposed to each other.

न च कर्महेतूनां कामानां ज्ञानाभावे निवृत्त्यसंभवादशेषकर्मक्षयोपपत्तिः।
Moreover, since desires, which are the springs of action, cannot cease unless there is enlightenment, there is no possibility of the eradication of actions as a whole (by the obligatory duties).

अनात्मविदो हि कामः, अनात्मफलविषयत्वात्। स्वात्मनि च कामानुपपत्तिः, नित्यप्राप्तत्वात्। स्वयं चात्मा परं ब्रह्मेत्युक्तम्।
And it has been said that since desire has for its objects things other than the Self, it belongs to one who has not realized the Self; that there can be no desire in one’s own Self, It being ever realized;
[•“To those who see everything as the Self, there can be really no object (of desire) and hence there is no possibility of desire”.—A.G.•]
and that the Self is the supreme Brahman.

नित्यानां च अकरणमभावः ततः प्रत्यवायानुपपत्तिरिति। अतः पूर्वोपचितदुरितेभ्यः प्राप्यमाणायाः प्रत्यवायक्रियाया नित्याकरणं लक्षणमिति
Besides, the non-performance of obligatory duties is a negation, from which an evil consequence cannot reasonably follow;
[•“A future sorrow is called a pratyavāya, which being a positive entity, cannot have a non-entity as its cause. For according to the Veda text, ‘Sin arises from sin’ (BrhUEng.4.4.5) sorrow is caused by the performance of prohibited actions.”—A.G.•]
hence the non-observance of the obligatory duties is a pointer to the fruition of the evil consequences flowing from the sins accumulated in the past.

शतृप्रत्ययस्य नानुपपत्तिः – ‘अकुर्वन्विहितं कर्म’ (मनु. ११-४४) इति। अन्यथा हि अभावाद्भावोत्पत्तिरिति सर्वप्रमाणव्याकोप इति।
Accordingly, the use of the suffix śatṛ (‘-ing’) is not unreasonable in the text: ‘Not performing the obligatory duty (and performing the prohibited ones and getting attached to sense-objects, a man courts his downfall)’ (M. XI.44).
[•The use of the śatṛ (-ing) along with a negative (in ‘not performing’) cannot be construed to mean that non-performance is the cause of downfall; for the sentence bears a more reasonable interpretation. For good people point to evil consequences thus: “Had there been a proper performance of obligatory and occasional duties, there would have been an attenuation of accumulated sins. But this man did not perform the enjoined duties; hence there must be pratyavāya (i.e. non-elimination of future sorrow).” Non-performance is thus only a pointer and not a cause.•]
Else there will emerge a positive entity from a non-entity, which fact will nullify all means of valid knowledge.

अतः अयत्नतः स्वात्मन्यवस्थानमित्यनुपपन्नम्।
Therefore, it is not proved that a man, (as it result of karma) remains poised in his Self without any positive (spiritual) effort.

यच्चोक्तं निरतिशयप्रीतेः स्वर्गशब्दवाच्यायाः कर्मनिमित्तत्वात्कर्मारभ्य एव मोक्ष इति, तन्न, नित्यत्वान्मोक्षस्य। न हि नित्यं किञ्चिदारभ्यते, लोके यदारब्धम्, तदनित्यमिति। अतो न कर्मारभ्यो मोक्षः।
As for the statement, ‘emancipation (mokṣa) is attainable through activity inasmuch as the unsurpassable happiness, called heaven, is a result of karma’, that too is wrong. For emancipation is a permanent entity, and nothing that is everlasting can ever have a beginning. Whatever is produced in this world is impermanent. Therefore, emancipation is not a creation of karma.

विद्यासहितानां कर्मणां नित्यारंभसामर्थ्यमिति चेत्,
Objection : Karma in association with meditation (and worship) has the capacity of producing a permanent thing.

न; विरोधात्। नित्यं चारभ्यत इति विरुद्धम्।
Answer: No, because that involves a contradiction. It is self-contradictory to say that a thing that is eternal is still created.

यद्धि नष्टम्, तदेव नोत्पद्यत इति प्रध्वंसाभाववन्नित्योऽपि मोक्ष आरभ्य एवेति चेत्,
Objection: Since the very thing which is destroyed cannot be produced again, therefore liberation, though permanent, can be brought into existence just like non-existence in the form of destruction (which is brought about by action).
[•According to the Nyāya philosophy, non-existences are of four kinds: (1) absolute non-existence (atyanta-abhāva), (2) mutual non-existence (anyonya-abhāva), (3) non-existence in the form of destruction (pradhvaṃsa-abhāva), and (4) previous non-existence (prāg-abhāva) As regards the third kind of non-existence, it occurs where a thing, e.g. a pot, is broken. Since that very pot cannot be created over again, the destruction, once encompassed, continues for eternity. Or, in other words, the destruction is created, but it is eternal. Similarly, a created salvation can be eternal.•]

न; मोक्षस्य भावरूपत्वात्।
Answer: No, for freedom is a positive entity.
[•And not a non-existence, which destruction is.•]

प्रध्वंसाभावोऽप्यारभ्यत इति न संभवति अभावस्य विशेषाभावाद्विकल्पमात्रमेतत्।
(Moreover) since non-existences, (as such), cannot be distinguished, it is a mere fancy to aver that non-existence in the form of destruction has a beginning.
[•It is wrong to deny a beginning for other forms of non-existence while allowing it for destruction only. Nyāya believes that emancipation means destruction of sorrow and nothing positive.•]

भावप्रतियोगी ह्यभावः। यथा ह्यभिन्नोऽपि भावो घटपटादिभिर्विशेष्यते भिन्न इव घटभावः पटभाव इति, एवं निर्विशेषोऽप्यभावः क्रियागुणयोगाद्द्रव्यादिवद्विकल्प्यते
Non-existence is in fact that which is opposed to existence. On the analogy that existence, though one, is differentiated by a pot or a cloth, as the existence of a pot or the existence of a cloth, as though they are different, the non-existence of existence, too, though undifferentiated, is imagined to be differentiated – just as substances etc. are – owing to the (fancied) association (with them) of action, quality, etc.

न ह्यभाव उत्पलादिवद्विशेषणसहभावी। विशेषणवत्त्वे भाव एव स्यात्।
Not that a non-existence can coexist with a quality in the sense that a lotus does (with its colour etc.). Should it be possessed of an adjective, it will become nothing but existence.
[•An adjective co-exists with a noun. Now non-existence cannot co-exist with its counterpart – a positive attribute – though the latter is prefixed to it as an adjective (as in ghata-abhāva – pot’s non-existence); for if co-existence were possible, then on the assumption that pradhvaṃsa-abhāva is eternal, its adjectival counterpart, viz pot, would also, become eternal. Moreover, if it co-exists with the pot, then it cannot be non-existence, for existence and non-existence are mutually exclusive. Therefore, the supposition that different classes of non-existences can be distinguished is only an error arising from similar concepts pertaining to their positive counterparts.•]

विद्याकर्मकर्तुर्नित्यत्वात् विद्याकर्मसंतानजनितमोक्षनित्यत्वमिति चेत्,
Objection: Since the agent of meditation and action is eternal, the salvation emerging as a result of a flow of meditation and action is eternal.
[•Since the means flow as a constant current, the end, too, will go on flowing concurrently and eternally.•]

न; गङ्गास्रोतोवत्कर्तृत्वस्य दुःखरूपत्वात्, कर्तृत्वोपरमे च मोक्षविच्छेदात्। तस्मादविद्याकामकर्मोपादानहेतुनिवृत्तौ स्वात्मन्यवस्थानं मोक्ष इति।
Answer: No. For the agentship that flows like the current of the Gaṅgā is an evil in itself, and salvation will be subject to cessation on the cessation of agentship.
[•If agentship flows on unceasingly, there will be no emancipation; and if the flow stops, emancipation too will stop.•]
Therefore, emancipation consists in continuance in one’s own Self on the cessation of the material cause in the form of ignorance, desire, and activity.

स्वयं चात्मा ब्रह्म। तद्विज्ञानादविद्यानिवृत्तिरिति।
The Self, as such, is Brahman; and from the knowledge of Brahman follows liberation consisting in the eradication of ignorance.

अतः ब्रह्मविद्यार्थोपनिषदारभ्यते। उपनिषदिति विद्योच्यते, तत्सेविनां गर्भजन्मजरादिनिशातनात्, तदवसादनाद्वा ब्रह्मण उपनिगमयितृत्वात्; उपनिषण्णं वा अस्यां परं श्रेय इति। तदर्थत्वाद्ग्रन्थोऽप्युपनिषत्॥

Hence is commenced (this) Upaniṣad
[•See also the Āchārya’s Introduction to Kaṭha Upaniṣad, KathU.Intro.•]
meant for to lead to the acquisition of the knowledge of Brahman. Knowledge (itself) is referred to by the word Upaniṣad, for, in the case of those who are devoted to it, it either loosens or ends such things as being born in a womb and old age, or because it takes one near Brahman, or because the highest good is proximately embedded in it. And the book, too, is called an Upaniṣad because it is meant for that purpose.

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

anu.1.01 anu.1.02 anu.1.03 anu.1.04 anu.1.05 anu.1.06 anu.1.07 anu.1.08 anu.1.09 anu.1.10 anu.1.11 anu.1.12

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


शं सुखं प्राणवृत्तेरह्नश्चाभिमानी देवतात्मा मित्रः नः अस्माकं भवतु। तथैव अपानवृत्तेः रात्रेश्चाभिमानी देवतात्मा वरुणः; चक्षुषि आदित्ये चाभिमानी अर्यमा; बले इन्द्रः; वाचि बुद्धौ च बृहस्पतिः; विष्णुः उरुक्रमः विस्तीर्णक्रमः पादयोरभिमानी; एवमाद्या अध्यात्मदेवताः शं नः; भवतु इति सर्वत्रानुषङ्गः।
May Mitra, the deity who identifies himself with and is the self of the function of exhaling and of day; become śam, blissful; naḥ, to us. Similarly, too, Varuṇa is the deity who identifies himself with and is the self of the function of inhaling and of night. Aryaman identifies himself with the eye and the sun, Indra with strength, and Bṛhas-pati with speech and intellect. Viṣṇu is uru-kramaḥ, possessed of great strides, and identifies himself with the feet. These are the deities in the context of the body. The expression, śam naḥ bhavatu, may he be blissful to us, is to be connected with all.

तासु हि सुखकृत्सु विद्याश्रवणधारणोपयोगाः अप्रतिबन्धेन भविष्यन्तीति तत्सुखकृत्त्वं प्रार्थ्यते – शं नो भवतु इति। ब्रह्मविद्याविविदिषुणा नमस्कारब्रह्मवदनक्रिये वायुविषये ब्रह्मविद्योपसर्गशान्त्यर्थे क्रियेते –
Since the comprehension, retention, and communication of the knowledge of Brahman can proceed without hindrance when the gods are benevolent, their benignity is being prayed for by saying, śam naḥ bhavatu etc. Salutation and eulogy are offered to Vāyu (Air) by one craving for the knowledge of Brahman, so that the hindrances to the knowledge of Brahman may be averted.

सर्वत्र क्रियाफलानां तदधीनत्वात्। ब्रह्म वायुः, तस्मै ब्रह्मणे नमः प्रह्वीभावम्, करोमीति वाक्यशेषः। नमः ते तुभ्यं हे वायो नमस्करोमि इति परोक्षप्रत्यक्षाभ्यां वायुरेवाभिधीयते।
Since the fruits of all actions are in his keeping, Vāyu is Brahman; Brahmaṇe, to that Brahman; namaḥ, (humble) salutation; the expression, ‘I offer’, has to be added to complete the sentence. Namaḥ, salutation; te, to you; vāyo, 0 Vāyu; i.e. I salute you. Thus Vāyu (Air, Life) himself is referred to both mediately and immediately.

किं च, त्वमेव चक्षुराद्यपेक्ष्य बाह्यं संनिकृष्टमव्यवहितं प्रत्यक्षं ब्रह्मासि यस्मात्, तस्मात् त्वामेव प्रत्यक्षं ब्रह्म वदिष्यामि;
Besides, (0 Air), since tvam eva asi, you yourself are; pratyakṣam brahma (brahman in neuter gender), the direct and immediate Brahman – being proximate and without any intervention, as contrasted with outer organs like the eye etc.; therefore, vadiṣyāmi, I shall call; tvām eva, you alone; as pratyakṣam brahma, the direct and immediate Brahman.
[•Brahman is referred to indirectly by such words as, “that“, and directly by the word Vāyu; for Vāyu, in the form of the vital force {prāṇa) is directly perceived, though as Sūtra (Hiraṇya-garbha linking up all) he is known indirectly. The life force is more directly cognised than the sense-organs like the eye etc., which have to be inferred from the facts of their perceiving colour etc. The vital force is directly cognised by the Witness (Self); and as compared with the sense-organs, it is nearer to the Self. Besides, the word Brahman, derivatively means that which nourishes; the vital force nourishes the body. Therefore it is Brahman with regard to the body.•]

ऋतं यथाशास्त्रं यथाकर्तव्यं बुद्धौ सुपरिनिश्चितमर्थं त्वदधीनत्वात् त्वामेव वदिष्यामि; सत्यम् इति स एव वाक्कायाभ्यां संपाद्यमानः, सोऽपि त्वदधीन एव संपाद्यत इति त्वामेव सत्यं वदिष्यमि
Ṛtam, righteousness, is an idea fully ascertained by the intellect in accordance with the scriptures and in conformity with practice; that, too, being subject to you, vadiṣyāmi, I shall speak of you alone as that (ṛta). Satyam, truth, is that which is reduced to practice through speech and bodily action; since that truth, too, is practised under you, vadiṣyāmi, I shall call you that truth.

तत् सर्वात्मकं वाय्वाख्यं ब्रह्म मयैवं स्तुतं सत् विद्यार्थिनं माम् अवतु विद्यासंयोजनेन।
May tat, that, the all-pervasive Brahman, called Vāyu, being thus prayed to by me who hanker after knowledge; avatu mām, protect me – by endowing me with knowledge.

तद् एव ब्रह्म वक्तारम् आचार्यं च वक्तृत्वसामर्थ्यसंयोजनेन अवतुअवतु माम् अवतु वक्तारम् इति पुनर्वचनमादरार्थम्। शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः इति त्रिर्वचनम् आध्यात्मिकाधिभौतिकाधिदैविकानां विद्याप्राप्त्युपसर्गाणां प्रशमनार्थम्॥

May tat, that very Brahman; avatu, protect; vaktāram, the teacher – by endowing him with the power of exposition. The repetition of the expressions, avatu mām avatu vaktāram, is for showing eagerness (for knowledge). The three repetitions in Om śāntiḥ, śāntiḥ, śāntiḥ, (0m, peace, peace, peace) are for destroying the three kinds of obstacles to the acquisition of knowledge, viz the physical, the natural, and the supernatural.

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


अर्थज्ञानप्रधानत्वादुपनिषदः ग्रन्थपाठे यत्नोपरमो मा भूदिति शीक्षाध्याय आरभ्यते –
The chapter ‘On the Science of Pronunciation’ is begun so that there may not be any slackness in the effort involved in the recital of the text; for the comprehension of meaning plays a prominent part in the Upaniṣad.
[•Comprehension of meaning is dependent on proper pronunciation; and slackness in effort refers to errors in pronunciation.•]

शिक्षा शिक्ष्यते अनयेति वर्णाद्युच्चारणलक्षणम्, शिक्ष्यन्ते अस्मिन् इति वा शिक्षा वर्णादयः। शिक्षैव शीक्षा। दैर्घ्यं छान्दसम्।
Śīkṣā, (derivatively) signifying that through which something is learnt, is the science of pronunciation of letters etc. Or, from the (derivative) implication of those things that are learnt, śīkṣā means the letters etc. Śīkṣā is the same as śikṣā, the lengthening (of i) being a Veda licence.

तां शीक्षां व्याख्यास्यामः विस्पष्टम् आ समन्तात्प्रकथयिष्यामः। चक्षिङः ख्याञादिष्टस्य व्याङ्पूर्वस्य व्यक्तवाक्कर्मण एतद्रूपम्।
That śīkṣām, science of pronunciation; vyākhyāsyāmaḥ, we shall explain – (derivatively meaning) we shall speak (khyāsyāmaḥ) clearly (vi-) and fully (ā-). This form of the verb, signifying as it does the revelation of the activity (of the organ of speech), is (said to be) derived from the root cakṣiṅ which optionally changes into khyā, and is preceded by vi- and ā-.

तत्र वर्णः अकारादिः। स्वर उदात्तादिः। मात्रा ह्रस्वाद्याः। बलं प्रयत्नविशेषः। साम वर्णानां मध्यमवृत्त्योच्चारणं समता। संतानः सन्ततिः, संहितेत्यर्थः। एवं शिक्षितव्योऽर्थः शिक्षा यस्मिन्नध्याये, सोऽयं शीक्षाध्यायः इति एवम् उक्तः उदितः। उक्त इत्युपसंहारार्थः॥

Now, the varṇaḥ, alphabet, consists of a etc. The svaraḥ, accent, is udātta (elevated) etc. (svaritaḥ, pitched; and anudātta, unaccented). The mātrāḥ, measures (the times required to pronounce), are short etc. Balam, emphasis, is the kind of effort (in pronunciation). Sāman is uniformity – the medium mode of pronunciation of letters. Santānaḥ is the same as saṃhitā, i.e. juxtaposition (conjoining of the letters etc.). This is, indeed, what is to be taught. This śīkṣā-adhyāyaḥ, chapter in which śīkṣā occurs; uktaḥ, has been spoken; iti, thus. The conclusion with the word uktaḥ, is for the sake of making the way clear for what follows.

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


अधुना संहितोपनिषदुच्यते। तत्र संहिताद्युपनिषत्परिज्ञाननिमित्तं यत् यशः प्राप्यते, तत् नौ आवयोः शिष्यार्चार्ययोः सह एव अस्तु। तन्निमित्तं च यत् ब्रह्मवर्चसं तेजः, तच्च सह एव अस्तु इति शिष्यवचनमाशीः।
Now is being stated the (esoteric) meditation on the saṃhitā (conjoining of letters). There, again, may the yaśaḥ, fame – which is prayed for as a reward for the full knowledge of the (esoteric) meditation on the saṃhitā etc.; come. saha, simultaneously; nau, to us both – to the teacher and the taught. And the brahma-varcasam, spiritual preeminence, splendour, that results from it; may that, too, occur saha, simultaneously; (nau), to us both.

शिष्यस्य हि अकृतार्थत्वात्प्रार्थनोपपद्यते; नाचार्यस्य, कृतार्थत्वात्। कृतार्थो ह्याचार्यो नाम भवति।
This is an expression of a prayer on the part of the pupil. For, in the case of a pupil a prayer is appropriate, since his aspiration still remains unrealized. But this is not a prayer of the teacher, as he has gained the goal. For a teacher is called so when his aspiration has been fulfilled.

अथ अनन्तरम् अध्ययनलक्षणविधानस्य पूर्ववृत्तस्य, अतः यतोऽत्यर्थं ग्रन्थभाविता बुद्धिर्न शक्यते सहसार्थज्ञानविषयेऽवतारयितुमित्यतः, संहितायाः उपनिषदं संहिताविषयं दर्शनमित्येतत् ग्रन्थसंनिकृष्टामेव व्याख्यास्यामः, पञ्चसु अधिकरणेषु आश्रयेषु, ज्ञानविषयेष्वित्यर्थः।
Since the intellect that is too much occupied with (verbal) texts cannot easily be led to the domain of comprehension of meaning, ataḥ, therefore; atha, after this, after the codification of the science of study; vyākhyāsyāmaḥ, we shall state; upaniṣadam saṃhitāyāḥ, the Upaniṣad, i.e. meditation, with regard to the saṃhitā (conjoining of letters) – a subject that is closely related to the (verbal) text itself; pañcasu adhikaraṇeṣu, under five headings – through five means, i.e. subjects of knowledge.

कानि तानीत्याह – अधिलोकं लोकेष्वधि यद्दर्शनम्, तदधिलोकम्, तथा अधिज्यौतिषम् अधिविद्यम् अधिप्रजम् अध्यात्मम् इति।
Which are they? They are being enumerated; adhi-lokam, the meditation that refers to the worlds; similarly, adhi-jyautiṣam, meditation concerning lights; adhi-vidyam, meditation concerning knowledge; adhi-prajam, meditation concerning progeny; adhi-ātmam, meditation concerning the body.
[•As one thinks of an image as Viṣṇu, so one can think of the different factors in a juxtaposition as the deities that reside over them, the meditation being on the deities and not on the things that are enumerated under the five categories.•]

ताः एताः पञ्चविषया उपनिषदः लोकादिमहावस्तुविषयत्वात्संहिताविषयत्वाच्च महत्यश्च ताः संहिताश्च महासंहिताः इति आचक्षते कथयन्ति वेदविदः।
The people versed in the Vedas, ācakṣate, speak of; tāḥ, these – these meditations concerning five subjects–; as mahā-saṃhitāḥ, the great juxtapositions they being great, since they relate to great things like the world, and being saṃhitās (juxtapositions) as well.

अथ तासां यथोपन्यस्तानां मध्ये अधिलोकं दर्शनमुच्यते। दर्शनक्रमविवक्षार्थः अथशब्दः सर्वत्र। पृथिवी पूर्वरूपम्, पूर्वो वर्णः पूर्वरूपम्, संहितायाः पूर्वे वर्णे पृथिवीदृष्टिः कर्तव्येत्युक्तं भवति। तथा द्यौः उत्तररूपम्आकाशः अन्तरिक्षलोकः संधिः मध्यं पूर्वोत्तररूपयोः संधीयते अस्मिन्पूर्वोत्तररूपे इति॥

Atha, now then; from among all these, as they are presented seriatim, adhi-lokam, the meditation with reference to the worlds, is being stated. The word atha is used everywhere to show the order (of meditation). Pṛthivī, the earth; is pūrva-rūpam, the earlier form, the earlier letter; this amounts to saying that one should think of the first letter, occurring in a juxtaposition, as the earth. Similarly, the uttara-rūpam, the last letter; is dyauḥ, heaven. Ākāśaḥ, sky (or space); is sandhiḥ, the middle one, between the first and the last letters, since in it the first and last forms get united.

वायुः संधानम्। संधीयते अनेनेति संधानम्। इति अधिलोकं दर्शनमुक्तम्। अथाधिज्यौतिषम् इत्यादि समानम्।
Vāyuḥ, air, is; sandhānam, the link (a catalytic agent) – derived in the sense of that by which things are conjoined.
[•“To illustrate: In the text iśe tvā, the e that follows the ś is the symbol of the earth; the t that follows is identical with heaven; the intermediate space between these two letters is ākāśa (the tryst); the other t that emerges by duplication in that space as a result of the process of conjoining the two parts, the actual pronunciation being iśet-tvā, is identified with Vāyu (the joining agent). This is how one should meditate.”— Śaṅkarānanda.•]
Iti, thus far – is stated; adhi-lokam, the meditation with reference to the worlds. Atha adhi-jyautiṣam etc. are to be similarly explained.

इति इमा इति उक्ता उपप्रदर्श्यन्ते। यः कश्चित् एवम् एताः महासंहिताः व्याख्याताः वेद उपास्ते, वेदेत्युपासनं स्यात्, विज्ञानाधिकारात्, ‘इति प्राचीनयोग्योपास्स्व’ इति च वचनात्।
The two words, iti and imāḥ, thus and these, allude to what was mentioned earlier. Yaḥ, anyone who; evam, thus; veda, meditates; on etāḥ mahā-saṃhitāḥ, these great juxtapositions; vyākhyātāḥ, as explained –. The meaning of the word veda should be upāsana, meditation or adoration, because the topic is of perfect knowledge,
[•If this meditation is resorted to by one who desires fruits, he gets these only. But this again leads a desireless man to knowledge of Brahman, and the second objective is aimed at by this Upaniṣad.•]
and because there is the text: ‘Thus, 0 Prācīna-yogya, you worship’ (TaitU.1.6.2).

उपासनं च यथाशास्त्रं तुल्यप्रत्ययसन्ततिरसंकीर्णा च अतत्प्रत्ययैः शास्त्रोक्तालम्बनविषया च। प्रसिद्धश्चोपासनशब्दार्थो लोके – ‘गुरुमुपास्ते’ ‘राजानमुपास्ते’ इति। यो हि गुर्वादीन्संततमुपचरति, स उपास्त इत्युच्यते। स च फलमाप्नोत्युपासनस्य।
And meditation consists in a current of uniform concepts, not interspersed with dissimilar ones, which proceeds according to the scriptures and relates to an object enjoined in the scriptures. Besides, the word upāsana is well known in the world in such sentences as, ‘He upāsate, waits on (i.e. adores), the Guru’, ‘He upāsate, waits on (i.e. adores), the king’; for a man who constantly serves the Guru and others is said to be rendering upāsana (adoration to them); and he acquires the fruit of his adoration.

अतः अत्रापि य एवं वेद, संधीयते प्रजा-आदिभिः स्वर्गान्तैः। प्रजादिफलं प्राप्नोतीत्यर्थः॥

Similarly, in the present context, too, he who meditates thus, sandhīyate, is conjoined with the things beginning from progeny and ending with heaven; that is, he acquires the fruits such as progeny and others.

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


यश्छन्दसाम् इति मेधाकामस्य श्रीकामस्य च तत्प्राप्तिसाधनं जपहोमावुच्येते, ‘स मेन्द्रो मेधया स्पृणोतु’ ‘ततो मे श्रियमावह’ इति च लिङ्गदर्शनात्। यः छन्दसां वेदानाम् ऋषभ इव ऋषभः, प्राधान्यात्। विश्वरूपः सर्वरूपः, सर्ववाग्व्याप्तेः ‘तद्यथा शङ्कुना सर्वाणि पर्णानि संतृण्णान्येवमोङ्कारेण सर्वा वाक्संतृण्णोंकार एवेदं सर्वम्’ (ChanU.2.23.3) इत्यादिश्रुत्यन्तरात्।
In the text beginning with yaḥ chandasām are being mentioned, for him who wants intelligence and wealth, a prayer and a sacrifice which are the means for their acquisition; and this conclusion is borne out by the indications implied in, ‘May he who is Indra gratify me with intelligence’, and ‘Then bring for me wealth’. Yaḥ, he who; chandasām, among the Vedas; is ṛṣabhaḥ, a bull – like a bull, because of preeminence; viśva-rūpaḥ, omniform – because of permeating all speech, in accordance with another Veda text, ‘For instance, as (all leaves are held together) by their mid-ribs, (in this way all the words are joined together by Om)’ (ChanU.2.23.3).

अत एव ऋषभत्वमोङ्कारस्य। ओङ्कारो ह्यत्रोपास्य इति ऋषभादिशब्दैः स्तुतिर्न्याय्यैव ओङ्कारस्य।
– Hence is Om a bull. Om is indeed the object to be worshipped here; hence its eulogy through such words as ‘bull’ is quite appropriate.

छन्दोभ्यः वेदेभ्यः, वेदा हि अह्यमृतम्, तस्मात् अमृतात् अधि संबभूव लोकदेववेदव्याहृतिभ्यः सारिष्ठं जिघृक्षोः प्रजापतेस्तपस्यतः ओङ्कारः सारिष्ठत्वेन प्रत्यभादित्यर्थः। न हि नित्यस्य ओङ्कारस्य अञ्जसैवोत्पत्तिरवकल्पते।
Chandobhyaḥ, from the Vedas; a-mṛtāt, from immortality – the Vedas are indeed, immortal –, from that immortality; adhi-sambabhūva, was born super-excellently. The idea is that, Om appeared as the quintessence when Prajā-pati performed austerity (i.e. deliberated intently) with a view to extracting the finest essence from the worlds, the gods, the Vedas and the Vyāhṛtis (Bhūḥ, Bhuvaḥ, Svaḥ). (It was only a revelation to him), for in the case of Om, which is everlasting, no real origination can properly be imagined.

सः एवंभूत ओङ्कारः इन्द्रः सर्वकामेशः परमेश्वरः मा मां मेधया प्रज्ञया स्पृणोतु प्रीणयतु, बलयतु वा, प्रज्ञाबलं हि प्रार्थ्यते। अमृतस्य अमृतत्वहेतुभूतस्य ब्रह्मज्ञानस्य, तदधिकारात्; हे देव धारणः धारयिता भूयासं भवेयम्।
Saḥ, he – the Om which is of this kind; and which is indraḥ, the ordainer of all desires, the supreme Lord; spṛṇotu, may (He) gratify or strengthen – for the strength of wisdom is the object prayed for; , me; medhayā, with wisdom. Deva, 0 God; bhūyūsam, may (I) become; dhāraṇaḥ, the wearer; a-mṛtasya, of immortality – of the knowledge of Brahman which is the cause of immortality, this being the context of that knowledge.
[•Unless a man has intelligence, he cannot acquire knowledge of Brahman. Hence even a prayer for intelligence is meant for that knowledge. And since a poor man cannot purify his heart by scriptural rites, he must perform a sacrifice that is calculated to make him wealthy. Thus such a sacrifice, too, is an indirect aid to knowledge.•]

किं च, शरीरं मे मम विचर्षणं विचक्षणं योग्यमित्येतत्, भूयादिति प्रथमपुरुषविपरिणामः। जिह्वा मे मम मधुमत्तमा मधुमती, अतिशयेन मधुरभाषिणीत्यर्थः। कर्णाभ्यां श्रोत्राभ्यां भूरि बहु विश्रुवं व्यश्रवम्, श्रोता भूयासमित्यर्थः। आत्मज्ञानयोग्यः कार्यकरणसंघातोऽस्त्विति वाक्यार्थः।
Moreover, may, me, my; śarīram, body; become vicarṣaṇam, skilful, i.e. fit. The verb bhūyūsam (in the first person) should (here) be changed into bhūyāt in the third person. (May) me, my; jihvā, tongue; (become) madhumattamā, exceedingly sweet, i.e. abundantly possessed of sweet speech. Karṇābhyām, through the ears; viśruvam (i.e. vyaśravam), may I hear, that is, may I become a hearer of; bhūri, much. The meaning of the passage is that the group of my body and senses should become fit for the knowledge of the Self.

मेधा च तदर्थमेव हि प्रार्थ्यते – ब्रह्मणः परमात्मनः कोशः असि असेरिव; उपलब्ध्यधिष्ठानत्वात्; त्वं हि ब्रह्मणः प्रतीकम्, त्वयि ब्रह्मोपलभ्यते। मेधया लौकिकप्रज्ञया पिहितः आच्छादितः स त्वं सामान्यप्रज्ञैरविदिततत्त्व इत्यर्थः। श्रुतं श्रवणपूर्वकमात्मज्ञानादिकं विज्ञानं मे गोपाय रक्ष; तत्प्राप्त्यविस्मरणादिकं कुर्वित्यर्थः। जपार्था एते मन्त्रा मेधाकामस्य।
For the same purpose, intelligence, too, is being prayed for. Brahmaṇaḥ, of Brahman, of the supreme Self; asi, you are; the kośaḥ, sheath – like the scabbard of a sword, you being the seat of realization. Indeed, you are the symbol of Brahman, on you is Brahman realized. (You are) pihitaḥ, covered; medhayā, by worldly intelligence; i.e. you who are such, are not known in your reality by people of ordinary intellect. (You) gopāya, protect; me śrutam, things that have been heard by me, the knowledge etc. of the Self that I have acquired through hearing. The idea is: Vouchsafe it that there may be acquisition of it, and no forgetfulness etc. These mantras are meant to be used for self-repetition by one who wants intelligence.

श्रीकामस्य होमार्थास्त्वधुनोच्यन्ते मन्त्राः – आवहन्ती आनयन्ती; वितन्वाना विस्तारयन्ती; तनोतेस्तत्कर्मकत्वात्; कुर्वाणा निर्वर्तयन्ती अचीरम् अचिरं क्षिप्रमेव; छान्दसो दीर्घः; चिरं वा; कुर्वाणा, आत्मनः मम; किमित्याह वासांसि वस्त्राणि, मम, गावश्च गाश्चेति यावत्; अन्नपाने च सर्वदा; एवमादीनि कुर्वाणा श्रीर्या, तां ततः मेधानिर्वर्तनात्परम् आवह आनय; अमेधसो हि श्रीरनर्थायैवेति।
Now are being stated the mantras to be used for offering oblations by one who wants prosperity. Since prosperity to an unwise man is surely a cause of evil, therefore, tataḥ, after that, after vouchsafing intelligence; āvaha, bring; śriyam, the (Goddess of) Prosperity; who is āvahantī, a bringer; vitanvānā, an increaser – for the root tan implies kind of action; (sarvadā, ever); kurvāṇā, an accomplisher; a-cīram, soon – a-cīram being the same as a-ciram, the lengthening (of i) is being a Veda licence; or the reading may be, ciram kurvāṇā, an accomplisher for ever; ātmanaḥ mama, for myself who belong to Prosperity herself. (Bringer etc.) of what? That is being said: vāsāṃsi, clothes; ca, and; gāvaḥ, i.e. gāḥ, cattle; ca anna-pāne, and food and drink. (Bring) the Prosperity that, sarvadā, for ever, accomplishes all these.

किंविशिष्टाम्? लोमशाम् अजाव्यादियुक्ताम् अन्यैश्च पशुभिः सह युक्ताम् आवहेति। अधिकारादोंकार एवाभिसंबध्यते। स्वाहा, स्वाहाकारो होमार्थमन्त्रान्तज्ञापनार्थः।
Prosperity of what kind? Lomaśām, furry – (Prosperity that is) endowed with goats, sheep etc.; saha together with – (Prosperity that is) endowed with other paśubhiḥ, animals. From the context, as determined by ‘āvaha, bring’, it follows that Om itself is to be connected (with āvaha as its nominative). The utterance of svāhā is for indicating the end of the mantras meant for offering an oblation.

आमायन्तु इति। आयन्तु, मामिति व्यवहितेन संबन्धः, ब्रह्मचारिणःविमायन्तु प्रमायन्तु दमायन्तु शमायन्तु इत्यादि।
The construction of ā is with the remote word yantu thus: āyantu mām brahma-cāriṇah, may the Brahma-cārins come to me (from all sides). Similarly, may (brahma-cāriṇah), the Brahmacarins; vi mā āyantu, come to me variously; pra mā āyantu, come to me in a proper way;
[•Vimāyantu and pramā-āyantu are also interpreted thus: “May they be sincere towards me, may they be recipients of valid knowledge.”•]
dama-āyantu, be controlled in body; śama-āyantu, be controlled in mind, etc.

यशो जने यशस्विजनेषु असानि भवानि। श्रेयान् प्रशस्यतरः, वस्यसः वसीयसः वसुतराद्वसुमत्तराद्वा धनवज्जातीयपुरुषाद्विशेषवानहमसानीत्यर्थः।
Asāni, may I become; yaśaḥ, i.e. yaśasvī, famous; jane, among a multitude of people. Vasyasaḥ is the same as vasīyasaḥ, and means, from the supremely affluent or from him that excels all the wealthy; śreyān, more praiseworthy; (asāni), may I become; this is the construction.

किं च, तं ब्रह्मणः कोशभूतं त्वा त्वां हे भग भगवन् पूजार्ह, प्रविशानि। प्रविश्य चानन्यस्त्वदात्मैव भवानीत्यर्थः। सः त्वमपि मा मां भग भगवन्, प्रविश; आवयोरेकात्मत्वमेवास्तु।
Moreover, tam tvā, into you, such as you are – as the sheath of Brahman; bhaga, 0 venerable One; praviśāni, may I enter, and after entering, may I become identified, your very Self; this is the idea. Saḥ, you, too, such as you are; bhaga, 0 adorable One; praviśa, enter; , into me; let there be nothing but identity between us.

तस्मिन् त्वयि सहस्रशाखे बहुशाखाभेदे हे भगवन्, निमृजे शोधयामि अहं पापकृत्याम्। यथा लोके आपः प्रवता प्रवणवता निम्नवता देशेन यन्ति गच्छन्ति यथामासाः अहर्जरम्, संवत्सरोऽहर्जरः अहोभिः परिवर्तमानो लोकाञ्जरयतीति; अहानि वा अस्मिन् जीर्यन्ति अन्तर्भवन्तीत्यहर्जरः; तं च यथा मासाः यन्ति, एवं मां ब्रह्मचारिणः हे धातः सर्वस्य विधातः, माम् आयन्तु आगच्छन्तु सर्वतः सर्वदिग्भ्यः।
Tasmin, in you, such as you are; sahasra-śākhe, who are greatly diversified; aham, I; ni-mṛje, purify my sinful acts. In the world, yathā, as; āpaḥ, water; yanti, goes (flows); pravatā, down a sloping place; and yathā, as; māsāḥ, months; (roll into) ahar-jaram, the year – the year is ahar-jara since it, by undergoing change day be day, wears out people, or since the days get worn out, i.e. included in it; as the months go to it, evam, similarly; dhātaḥ, 0 Ordainer of everything; let brahma-cāriṇaḥ, the Brahma-cārins; mām āyantu, come to me; sarvataḥ, from all quarters.

प्रतिवेशः श्रमापनयनस्थानम् आसन्नं गृहमित्यर्थः। एवं त्वं प्रतिवेश इव प्रतिवेशः त्वच्छीलिनां सर्वपापदुःखापनयनस्थानम् असि। अतः मा मां प्रति प्रभाहि प्रकाशयात्मानम्, प्र मा पद्यस्व प्रपद्यस्व च माम्। रसविद्धमिव लोहं त्वन्मयं त्वदात्मानं कुर्वित्यर्थः।
Prativeśaḥ means a resting-place, a house at hand. Thus, to those who are devoted to you, prativeśaḥ asi, you are like a rest-house, a place where all sorrows resulting from sin can be removed. Therefore, towards , me; prabhāhi, you reveal yourself; and pra-padyasva, reach me through and through – make me full of you, i.e. identified with you, like gold soaked in mercury.

श्रीकामोऽस्मिन्विद्याप्रकरणे अभिधीयमानो धनार्थः; धनं च कर्मार्थम्; कर्म च उपात्तदुरितक्षयार्थम्; तत्क्षये हि विद्या प्रकाशते। तथा च स्मृतिः – ‘ज्ञानमुत्पद्यते पुंसां क्षयात्पापस्य कर्मणः। यथादर्शतले प्रख्ये पश्यत्यात्मानमात्मनि’ (म. भा. शां. २०४-८) (गरुड. १-२३७-६) इति॥
The prayer for prosperity dealt with in this context of knowledge is for the sake of wealth. Wealth is needed for rites; and rites are meant to diminish accumulated sins – on the exhaustion of these, indeed, knowledge becomes revealed. Supporting this view there is this Smṛti: ‘Just as one sees oneself on the clean surface of a mirror, so knowledge arises for man on the exhaustion of sin’ (Mbh. Sa. 204.8; Gar. 1.237.6).

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


संहिताविषयमुपासनमुक्तम्। तदनु मेधाकामस्य श्रीकामस्य चानुक्रान्ता मन्त्राः। ते च पारम्पर्येण विद्योपयोगार्था एव।
The meditation with regard to conjoining has been stated. After that have been dealt with, in an orderly way, the mantras for one who desires intelligence and prosperity. They, too, are indirectly helpful to knowledge.

अनन्तरं व्याहृत्यात्मनो ब्रह्मणः अन्तरुपासनं स्वाराज्यफलं प्रस्तूयते – भूर्भुवः सुवरिति। इतीत्युक्तोपप्रदर्शनार्थः।
Then is being commenced the internal meditation on Brahman as identified with the Vyāhṛtis,
[•Bhūḥ, bhuvaḥ, suvaḥ, etc., which stand for the respective worlds, are technically called the Vyāhṛtis. “These Vyāhṛtis had been accepted with faith (by the student). If Brahman is now taught by ignoring them, it will not be comprehended by the student’s intellect. Hence Brahman embodied in the Vyāhṛtis as Hiraṇya-garbha, is being presented for his inward meditation.”—A. G.•]
which has for its result the attainment of sovereignty (TaitU.1.6.2). The text bhūḥ bhuvaḥ suvaḥ iti is for drawing attention to what was stated (earlier).

एताः तिस्र इति च प्रदर्शितानां परामर्शार्थः परामृष्टाः स्मर्यन्ते वै इत्यनेन। तिस्र एताः प्रसिद्धा व्याहृतयः स्मर्यन्त इति यावत्।
The statement etāḥ tisraḥ, these three, is for calling up to memory the ones that have been enumerated; and vai (indeed) is used for refreshing the memory with regard to the things called up. Thus we are reminded of these three well-known Vyāhṛtis.

तासाम् इयं चतुर्थी व्याहृतिर्मह इति; ताम् एतां चतुर्थीं महाचमसस्यापत्यं माहाचमस्यः प्रवेदयते, उ ह स्म इत्येतेषां वृत्तानुकथनार्थत्वात् विदितवान् ददर्शेत्यर्थः। माहाचमस्यग्रहणमार्षानुस्मरणार्थम्। ऋष्यनुस्मरणमप्युपासनाङ्गमिति गम्यते, इहोपदेशात्।
Tāsām, of these; this is the fourth Vyāhṛti called Maha. Māhā-camasyaḥ, the son of Mahā-camasa, pravedayate, knows – i.e. knew, or visualized, because (the particles) u, ha, and sma, refer to what is past–; tām etām caturthīm, this fourth one. The mention of Māhā-camasya is by way of alluding to the seer (Ṛṣi). And from the fact of his mention in the instruction here, it is to be understood that the remembrance of the seer, too, forms a part of the meditation.

येयं माहाचमस्येन दृष्टा व्याहृतिः मह इति, तत् ब्रह्म। महद्धि ब्रह्म; महश्च व्याहृतिः। किं पुनस्तत्? स आत्मा, आप्नोतेर्व्याप्तिकर्मणः आत्मा; इतराश्च व्याहृतयो लोका देवा वेदाः प्राणाश्च मह इत्यनेन व्याहृत्यात्मना आदित्यचन्द्रब्रह्मान्नभूतेन व्याप्यन्ते यतः,
The Vyāhṛti that was seen (discovered) by Māhā-camasya, mahaḥ iti, as Maha; tat, that; is brahma, Brahman; for Brahman is great (mahat), and the Vyāhṛti, too, is Maha. What is that again? It is the Self the word ātmā (Self) being derived from the root āp in the sense of encompassing; for the other Vyāhṛtis, comprising the worlds, gods, the Vedas, and the vital forces, are encompassed by the Self in the form of the Vyāhṛti, Maha, which is identical with the sun, the moon, Brahman and food.

अत अङ्गानि अवयवाः अन्याः देवताः। देवताग्रहणमुपलक्षणार्थं लोकादीनाम्। मह इत्यस्य व्याहृत्यात्मनो देवा लोकादयश्च सर्वे अवयवभूता यतः, अत आह – आदित्यादिभिर्लोकादयो महीयन्त इति। आत्मना ह्यङ्गानि महीयन्ते महनं वृद्धिः उपचयः।
Therefore anyāḥ devāḥ, the other gods; are the aṅgāni, limbs. The mention of the gods is suggestive of the worlds and other factors as well. Since all the others, viz the gods, the worlds, etc., are the limbs of the Self in the form of the Vyāhṛti called Maha, therefore, the text says that the worlds etc., are made great by the sun etc., just as the limbs are made great through the self (i.e. the trunk of the body).

महीयन्ते वर्धन्त इत्यर्थः। अयं लोकः अग्निः ऋग्वेदः प्राण इति प्रथमा व्याहृतिः भूः, अन्तरिक्षं वायुः सामानि अपानः इति द्वितीया व्याहृतिः भुवः; असौ लोकः आदित्यः यजूंषि व्यानः इति तृतीया व्याहृतिः सुवः; आदित्यः चन्द्रमाः ब्रह्म अन्नम् इति चतुर्थी व्याहृतिः महः इति एवम् एकैकाश्चतुर्धा भवन्ति।
To become great (mahanam) is to grow, to develop; so mahīyante means (they) grow. Ayam lokaḥ (this world), agniḥ (fire), ṛg-vedaḥ (the Ṛg-Veda), prāṇaḥ (exhalation) – these are the first Vyāhṛti, Bhūḥ. Similarly, each of the succeeding ones becomes fourfold.
[•The Vyāhṛti, called Maha, is the trunk or self of the body of Brahman in Its aspect of Hiraṇya-garbha, for the trunk is the main thing on which are fixed and by which are sustained the subsidiary limbs. The first Vyāhṛti (bhūḥ) forms the legs; the second (bhuvaḥ) constitutes the hands; the third (suvaḥ) is the head of the Cosmic Person. The main injunction here is about the meditation on Brahman as embodied in the Vyāhṛtis. Then follow four other subsidiary meditations on the individual Vyāhṛtis, each of which is to be looked upon as identical with four things.•]

मह इति ब्रह्म ब्रह्मेत्योंकारः, शब्दाधिकारे अन्यस्यासंभवात्। उक्तार्थमन्यत्।
Maha is Brahman. Brahman means Om, for this being a context of words, any other meaning is inadmissible. The remaining portion stands already explained.

ता वा एताश्चतस्रश्चतुरर्धा इति। ता वै एताः भूर्भुवःसुवर्मह इति चतस्रः एकैकशः चतुर्धा चतुःप्रकाराः। धा-शब्दः प्रकारवचनः। चतस्रश्चतस्रः सत्यः चतुर्धा भवन्तीत्यर्थः।
Tāḥ vai etāḥ, these above-mentioned ones – Bhūḥ, Bhuvaḥ, Suvaḥ, Mahaḥ; these catasraḥ, four – each individually; are caturdhā, of four kinds, the suffix -dhā implying mode. The meaning is that they, forming groups of four (things), become fourfold (individually).
[•As the moon is made of sixteen digits, so also the Cosmic Person can be imagined to be constituted by sixteen limbs. Hence by thinking on each of the four Vyāhṛtis as consisting of four parts, one really meditates on the Cosmic Person in His totality.•]

तासां यथाक्लृप्तानां पुनरुपदेशस्तथैवोपासननियमार्थः।
The instruction, over again, regarding those very things that were thought of before, is for the sake of making a strict rule about the sequence of their meditation.

ताः यथोक्ता व्याहृतीः यः वेद, स वेद विजानाति। किं तत्? ब्रह्म।
Yaḥ veda, anyone who knows; tāḥ, those – the Vyāhṛtis as mentioned; saḥ veda, he knows. Knows what? Brahma, Brahman.

ननु, ‘तद्ब्रह्म स आत्मा’ इति ज्ञाते ब्रह्मणि, न वक्तव्यमविज्ञातवत् ‘स वेद ब्रह्म’ इति;
Objection: Is it not a fact that when Brahman has been already known in (the text), ‘It is Brahman, it is the Self’, there should not be the statement again, ‘he knows Brahman’, as though It is still unknown?

न; तद्विशेषविवक्षुत्वाददोषः। सत्यं विज्ञातं चतुर्थव्याहृत्या आत्मा ब्रह्मेति; न तु तद्विशेषः – हृदयान्तरुपलभ्यत्वं मनोमयत्वादिश्च। ‘शान्तिसमृद्धम्’ इत्येवमन्तो विशेषणविशेषरूपो धर्मपूगो न विज्ञायत इति;
Answer: No, there is no fault, since the intention is to state some speciality about Brahman. It is true that Brahman has been known as identified with the fourth Vyāhṛti (Mahaḥ), but the special fact of Its being realizable within the heart has not been known; nor are the attributes beginning with ‘who is realizable through knowledge’ etc., and ending with ‘enriched with peace’ (TaitU.1.6.1-2) which are being presented through a relationship of substance and qualities.

तद्विवक्षु हि शास्त्रमविज्ञातमिव ब्रह्म मत्वा ‘स वेद ब्रह्म’ इत्याह। अतो न दोषः।
Therefore, with a view to speaking of these, the scripture assumes as though Brahman is unknown, and says, ‘he knows Brahman’. Thus there is no defect.

यो वा वक्ष्यमाणेन धर्मपूगेण विशिष्टं ब्रह्म वेद, स वेद ब्रह्म इत्यभिप्रायः।
The idea is this: He, indeed, knows Brahman who knows It as qualified by the attributes to be mentioned hereafter.

अतो वक्ष्यमाणानुवाकेनैकवाक्यता अस्य, उभयोर्ह्यनुवाकयोरेकमुपासनम्। लिङ्गाच्च। ‘भूरित्यग्नौ प्रतितिष्ठति’ इत्यादिकं लिङ्गमुपासनैकत्वे।
Hence the present chapter (anuvāka, TaitU.1.5) is connected with the succeeding one (TaitU.1.6) through a single idea; for in both the chapters there is but a single meditation. And this is borne out by an indication (liṅga), too. For (the results spoken in) the statement, ‘He resides in fire in the form of the Vyāhṛti Bhūḥ’ etc., (occurring in TaitU.1.6.1) points to the unity of the meditation.

विधायकाभावाच्च। न हि वेद उपासीत वेति विधायकः कश्चिच्छब्दोऽस्ति।
Moreover, this (unity) follows from the absence of any (independent) verb of injunction, for (in the sixth chapter) there is no such imperative word as veda (should meditate), upāsita (should be meditated on).
[•“We do not find two independent verbs of injunction, from which to get the idea of two independent meditations. Besides, the division of the two chapters can be justified by holding the one as dealing with a primary injunction and the other with a subsidiary injunction. Accordingly, there is no justification for splitting up the meditation.”—A.G.•]

व्याहृत्यनुवाके ‘ता यो वेद’ इति तु वक्ष्यमाणार्थत्वान्नोपासनाभेदकः। वक्ष्यमाणार्थत्वं च तद्विशेषविवक्षुत्वादित्यादिनोक्तम्।
And again, since in the chapter dealing with the Vyāhṛtis the statement tāḥ yaḥ veda (he who knows these) (TaitU.1.5.3) implies something that has still to be stated, there is nothing to lead to a splitting up of the meditation (into two). And by asserting that there is an intention of stating some speciality, it has already been shown (by us) how this chapter has an ideological connection with what follows.

सर्वे देवाः अस्मै एवंविदुषे अङ्गभूताः आवहन्ति आनयन्ति बलिम्, स्वाराज्यप्राप्तौ सत्यामित्यर्थः॥
Asmai, to this one – who has known thus: sarve devāḥ, all the deities – who form the limbs; āvahanti, carry, bring; balim, offering – i.e. when ‘he attains sovereignty’ (TaitU.1.6.2).

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


भूर्भुवः सुवः स्वरूपा मह इत्येतस्य हिरण्यगर्भस्य व्याहृत्यात्मनो ब्रह्मणोऽङ्गान्यन्या देवता इत्युक्तम्। यस्य ता अङ्गभूताः, तस्यैतस्य ब्रह्मणः साक्षादुपलब्ध्यर्थमुपासनार्थं च हृदयाकाशः स्थानमुच्यते, सालग्राम इव विष्णोः।
It has been said that the other deities, viz those of Bhūḥ, Bhuvaḥ and Suvaḥ, are the limbs of Brahman as identified with the Vyāhṛti called Mahaḥ. Just as a Sāla-grāma (a stone symbol of Viṣṇu) is in the case of Viṣṇu, so the cavity of the heart is being presented as the place for the direct realization of and the meditation on Brahman of which those Vyāhṛtis are the limbs.

तस्मिन्हि तद्ब्रह्म उपास्यमानं मनोमयत्वादिधर्मविशिष्टं साक्षादुपलभ्यते, पाणाविवामलकम्।
For when Brahman is meditated on there, It is directly realized as possessed of such attributes as being ‘realizable through knowledge’ etc., like a myrobalan fruit in the hand.

मार्गश्च सर्वात्मभावप्रतिपत्तये वक्तव्य इत्यनुवाक आरभ्यते –

Moreover, the way to the realization of Self-identification with all has to be stated. Hence begins this chapter:
इति व्युत्क्रम्य अयं पुरुष इत्यनेन संबन्ध्यते। य एष अन्तर्हृदये हृदयस्यान्तः। हृदयमिति पुण्डरीकाकारो मांसपिण्डः प्राणायतनोऽनेकनाडीसुषिर ऊर्ध्वनालोऽधोमुखो विशस्यमाने पशौ प्रसिद्ध उपलभ्यते।
तस्यान्तः य एष आकाशः प्रसिद्ध एव करकाकाशवत्,
तस्मिन् सोऽयं पुरुषः, पुरि शयनात्, पूर्णा वा भूरादयो लोका येनेति पुरुषः मनोमयः, मनः विज्ञानं मनुतेर्ज्ञानकर्मणः, तन्मयः तत्प्रायः, तदुपलभ्यत्वात्।
The word saḥ (he) is to be construed with ayam puruṣaḥ (this person), skipping over the intermediate words. Yaḥ eṣaḥ, this (space); that is antaḥ hṛdaye, inside the heart –. The heart is a lump of flesh in the shape of a lotus, which is the seat of the vital force, which opens out through many nerves, which has its stalk upwards and face downwards, and which is seen as a familiar thing when an animal is dissected.
Within that is the ākāśaḥ, space – quite familiar like the space within a water-pot;
Tasmin, within that; exists ayam puruṣaḥ, this Person – who was mentioned earlier. Puruṣa is (derivatively) so called because of sleeping (śayana) within puri, the city (of the heart); or He by whom the worlds, such as the earth, are filled up (pūrṇa) is the Puruṣa. (He is) manomayaḥ: manaḥ means knowledge, being derived from the root man implying, to know; manomaya means ‘consisting of that knowledge’, because of being realized through it.
[•Since Brahman pervades ihe mind. It is realised in the mind which becomes transformed as knowledge (of Brahman).•]

मनुते अनेनेति वा मनः अन्तःकरणम्; तदभिमानी तन्मयः, तल्लिङ्गो वा। अमृतः अमरणधर्मा। हिरण्मयः ज्योतिर्मयः।
Or manaḥ may mean the internal organ (mind), being derived from the root man in the sense of that through which one thinks; and one who presides over the mind, is identified with it, or is indicated by it, is manomayaḥ. (He is) a-mṛtaḥ, deathless; hiraṇmayaḥ, effulgent.

तस्यैवंलक्षणस्य हृदयाकाशे साक्षात्कृतस्य विदुष आत्मभूतस्य ईश्वररूपस्य प्रतिपत्तये मार्गोऽभिधीयते – हृदयादूर्ध्वं प्रवृत्ता सुषुम्ना नाम नाडी योगशास्त्रेषु प्रसिद्धा। सा च अन्तरेण तालुके मध्ये तालुकयोर्गता। यःएष तालुकयोर्मध्ये स्तन इव अवलम्बते मांसखण्डः, तस्य च अन्तरेण इत्येतत्।
A path is being indicated which leads to the realization of that Indra (i.e. Brahman) in his aforesaid nature who has these attributes, and who is realized within the cavity of the heart, and who is the Self of the man of knowledge. The nerve, called suṣumṇā, goes upward from the heart and is well known in the scriptures on Yoga. And that nerve runs, antareṇa, in the well-known middle part; tāluke (should be tālukayoḥ), of the two palates; and also through yaḥ eṣaḥ, that one – the piece of flesh which; stanaḥ iva avalambate, hangs down like a teat – between the palates. This is the idea.

यत्रअसौ केशान्तः केशानामन्तो मूलं केशान्तः विवर्तते विभागेन वर्तते, मूर्धप्रदेश इत्यर्थः; तं देशं प्राप्य तेनान्तरेण व्यपोह्य विभज्य विदार्य शीर्षकपाले शिरःकपाले, विनिर्गता या, सा इन्द्रयोनिः इन्द्रस्य ब्रह्मणः योनिः मार्गः, स्वरूपप्रतिपत्तिद्वारमित्यर्थः।
And yatra, where; keśa-antaḥ, the ends or roots, of the hairs; vivartate, divide – i.e. the crown of the head; reaching that place, (the path) emerges out of it, vyapohya, splitting;.śīrṣa-kapāle, the skull-bones on the head; , that which (thus) issues forth; is indra-yoniḥ, the path of Indra, Brahman – i.e. the path for the realization of His true nature.

तथा एवं विद्वान्मनोमयात्मदर्शी मूर्ध्नो विनिष्क्रम्य अस्य लोकस्याधिष्ठाता भूरिति व्याहृतिरूपो योऽग्निः महतो ब्रह्मणोऽङ्गभूतः, तस्मिन् अग्नौ प्रतितिष्ठति, अग्न्यात्मना इमं लोकं व्याप्नोतीत्यर्थः।
The man of knowledge, who thus realizes the Self as identified with the mind, passes through the head, and pratitiṣṭhati, gets established; agnau, in Fire – (the deity) who presides over this world, who is identified with the Vyāhṛti Bhūḥ, and who is a limb of the great Brahman (as identified with Mahaḥ). The idea is that the enlightened man pervades this world through his identity with Fire.

तथा भुव इति द्वितीयव्याहृत्यात्मनि वायौ, प्रतितिष्ठतीत्यनुवर्तते।
Similarly, vāyau, in Air; identified with the second Vyāhṛti, bhuvaḥ iti, which is Bhuvaḥ; ‘he gets established’ – this is understood.

सुवरिति तृतीयव्याहृत्यात्मनि आदित्ये
He becomes established, āditye, in the Sun; identified with the third Vyāhṛti, suvaḥ iti, which is Suvaḥ.

मह इति अङ्गिनि चतुर्थव्याहृत्यात्मनि ब्रह्मणि प्रतितिष्ठतीति।
He becomes established brahmaṇi, in Brahman; identified with the fourth Vyāhṛti, mahaḥ iti, which is Maha, and of which the others are parts.

तेष्वात्मभावेन स्थित्वा आप्नोति ब्रह्मभूतं स्वाराज्यं स्वराड्भावं स्वयमेव राजा अधिपतिर्भवति अङ्गभूतानां देवतानां यथा ब्रह्म; देवाश्च सर्वे अस्मै अङ्गिने बलिमावहन्ति अङ्गभूताः यथा ब्रह्मणे।
Remaining in identification with them and becoming Brahman, āpnoti, he attains; svā-rājyam, the state of a sovereign he himself becomes a king, a ruler over all others, just as Brahman is over the gods who form Its limbs. And the deities that become his limbs carry offerings to him just as they do to Brahman.

आप्नोति मनसस्पतिम्, सर्वेषां हि मनसां पतिः, सर्वात्मकत्वाद्ब्रह्मणः सर्वैर्हि मनोभिस्तन्मनुते। तदाप्नोत्येवं विद्वान्।
Āpnoti manasas-patim, he attains the lord of the mind; since Brahman is all-pervasive, It is the lord of all the minds; indeed, It thinks through all the minds. A man who meditates thus attains It.

किं च, वाक्पतिः सर्वासां वाचां पतिर्भवति। तथैव चक्षुष्पतिः चक्षुषां पतिः। श्रोत्रपतिः श्रोत्राणां च पतिः। विज्ञानपतिः विज्ञानानां च पतिः। सर्वात्मकत्वात्सर्वप्राणिनां करणैस्तद्वान्भवतीत्यर्थः।
Moreover, bhavati, he becomes; vāk-patiḥ, the ruler of all the organs of speech. Similarly, also cakṣuṣ-patiḥ, the ruler of the eyes; śrotra-patiḥ, the ruler of the ears; and vijñāna-patiḥ, the ruler of intellects.) The idea is that he, being the Self of all, becomes possessed of the (respective) organs through identification with the organs of all beings.

किं च, ततोऽपि अधिकतरम् एतत् भवति। किं तत्? उच्यते – आकाशशरीरम् आकाशः शरीरमस्य, आकाशवद्वा सूक्ष्मं शरीरमस्येत्याकाशशरीरम्। किं तत्? प्रकृतं ब्रह्म
Besides, tataḥ, over and above even all that; etat bhavati, he becomes this. What is that? The answer is being given; (He becomes) ākāśa-śarīram – that which has ākāśa (space) as its body or whose body is as subtle as ākāśa. Who is that? Brahma, the Brahman, that is being discussed.

सत्यात्म, सत्यं मूर्तामूर्तम् अवितथं स्वरूपं वा आत्मा स्वभावोऽस्य, तदिदं सत्यात्म।
It is satya-ātmā: that which has satya, the gross and the subtle as also truth as Its ātmā, real characteristic, is this satya-ātmā.

प्राणारामम्, प्राणेष्वारमणमाक्रीडा यस्य तत्प्राणारामम्; प्राणानां वा आरामो यस्मिन्, तत्प्राणारामम्।
(That Brahman is) prāṇa-ārāmam: that which has its āramaṇa, disport, in the prāṇas, vital forces, is prāṇa-ārāma; or that in which the vital forces find their ārāma, delight, is prāṇa-ārāma.

मन आनन्दम्, आनन्दभूतं सुखकृदेव यस्य मनः, तन्मन आनन्दम्।
(It is) mana-ānandam: that whose mind (manaḥ) has become bliss (ānanda), a producer of happiness is mana-ānanda.

शान्तिसमृद्धम्, शान्तिरुपशमः, शान्तिश्च तत्समृद्धं च शान्तिसमृद्धम्; शान्त्या वा समृद्धवत्तदुपलभ्यत इति शान्तिसमृद्धम्। अमृतम् अमरणधर्मि,
(It is) śānti-samṛddham: śāntiḥ is peace; the very entity which is peace, being also prosperous (samṛddha), it is śānti-samṛddha; or that which is experienced to be enriched (samṛddha) with peace is śānti-samṛddha. (It is) a-mṛtam, immortal by nature.

एतच्चाधिकरणविशेषणं तत्रैव मनोमय इत्यादौ द्रष्टव्यम् इति
These additional attributes are to be understood as belonging to the earlier context beginning with manomayaḥ, etc. (TaitU.1.6.1)

एवं मनोमयत्वादिधर्मैर्विशिष्टं यथोक्तं ब्रह्म हे प्राचीनयोग्य, उपास्स्व इत्याचार्यवचनोक्तिरादरार्था। उक्तस्तूपासनाशब्दार्थः॥

Thus prācīna-yogya, 0 Prācīna-yogya; upāssva, meditate on the aforesaid Brahman as possessed of the qualities of being realizable through knowledge etc. This is a presentation of the teacher's utterance by way of demonstrating his love (for meditation). The meaning of the word upāsana (meditation) has already been explained (TaitU.1.3.4 commentary).

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


यदेतद्व्याहृत्यात्मकं ब्रह्मोपास्यमुक्तम्, तस्यैवेदानीं पृथिव्यादिपाङ्क्तस्वरूपेणोपासनमुच्यते – पञ्चसङ्ख्यायोगात्पङ्क्तिच्छन्दः संपत्तिः;
Of that very Brahman which has been presented for meditation as (Hiraṇya-garbha) identified with the Vyāhṛtis, another meditation, identifying It with the groups of five things (pāṅktas) beginning with the earth, is being stated. Because of the similarity of the number five, they are equated with the metre called Paṅkti.
[•Sampatti is a kind of meditation in which a lower thing is thought of as some other higher thing because of some point of similarity. Here the point of similarity is the number five. The different five factors, constituting the lower human personality, are here identified with the factors making up the higher cosmic Virāṭ.•]

ततः पाङ्क्तत्वं सर्वस्य। पाङ्क्तश्च यज्ञः, पञ्चपदा पङ्क्तिः ‘पाङ्क्तो यज्ञः’ (BrhU.1.4.17) इति श्रुतेः।
Thereby everything becomes identified with Pāṅkta. And a sacrifice, too, is identified with Pāṅkta, because the (metre) Paṅkti has five feet (with five letters in each), and a Veda text says: ‘The sacrifice is equated with Pāṅkta’ (BrhUEng.1.4.17).
[•Since a sacrifice is performed with five factors – the sacrificer and his wife, the priest, divine wealth, and human wealth. Thus everything can be equated not only with the metre Paṅkti, but also with sacrifice.•]

तेन यत्सर्वं लोकाद्यात्मान्तं च पाङ्क्तं परिकल्पयति, यज्ञमेव तत्परिकल्पयति। तेन यज्ञेन परिकल्पितेन पाङ्क्तात्मकं प्रजापतिमभिसंपद्यते। तत्कथं पाङ्क्तं वा इदं सर्वमित्यत आह –

As a result, all things beginning from the worlds and ending with the ātmā (Virāṭ) that are thought of as reduced to Pāṅkta, are thereby virtually imagined to be a sacrifice. Through the sacrifice thus imagined, one becomes Prajā-pati (Virāṭ) who is identified with all that,is equated with Pāṅkta. As to that, it is being shown how all this Universe consists of Pāṅkta (five factors):
पृथिवी अन्तरिक्षं द्यौः दिशः अवान्तरदिशः इति लोकपाङ्क्तम्।
Pṛthivī, antar-ikṣam, dyauḥ, diśaḥ, avāntara-diśaḥ [•Some texts read it as avāntara-diśāḥ.•] – the earth, sky, heaven, the (primary) quarters, and the intermediate quarters - these constitute loka-pāṅktam, the group of five in the context of the worlds.

अग्निः वायुः आदित्यः चन्द्रमाः नक्षत्राणि इति देवतापाङ्क्तम्।
Agniḥ, Vāyuḥ, Ādityaḥ, Candramāḥ, Nakṣatrāṇi – Fire, Air, Sun, Moon, Stars - these constitute the group of five deities (lit. shining ones, the devatā-pāṅktam).

आपः ओषधयः वनस्पतयः आकाशः आत्मा इति भूतपाङ्क्तम्। आत्मेति विराट्, भूताधिकारात्।
Āpaḥ, oṣadhayaḥ, vanas-patayaḥ, ākāśaḥ, ātmā – Water, herbs, trees, space, and ātmā, constitute the collection of five natural things (bhūta-pāṅktam). The word ātmā implies the cosmic gross body (Virāṭ) because this is a context of natural factors.

इत्यधिभूतम् इति अधिलोकाधिदैवतपाङ्क्तद्वयोपलक्षणार्थम्, लोकदेवतापाङ्क्तयोर्द्वयोश्चाभिहितत्वात्।
Iti adhi-bhūtam, this is with regard to natural things - this expression is used to imply the two groups of five worlds and the five deities as well, because the groups of the five worlds and the five deities, too, have been mentioned earlier.

अथ अनन्तरम् अध्यात्मं पाङ्क्तत्रयमुच्यते –
Atha, after that; adhy-ātmam, with regard to the personal, the three groups of five each, are being stated:

प्राण-आदि वायुपाङ्क्तम्।
Those beginning with prāṇa (function of exhaling) constitute the group of five vital forces (vāyu-pāṅktam).
[•These different forms of the vital force perform these functions respectively: exhaling, pervading, inhaling, leaving the body, and digesting.•]

चक्षुर्-आदि इन्द्रियपाङ्क्तम्।
Those starting with cakṣus (eye) make up the group of five sense organs (indriya-pāṅktam).

चर्म-आदि धातुपाङ्क्तम्।
Those commencing with carman (skin) form the group of five material constituents of the body (Dhātu-pāṅktam).

एतावद्धीदं सर्वमध्यात्मं बाह्यं च पाङ्क्तमेव इति
This much, indeed, is all that pertains to the personal (adhy-ātmam). And the external (bhāhyam) also is fivefold (pāṅktam).

एतत् एवम् अधिविधाय परिकल्प्य ऋषिः वेदः एतद्दर्शनसंपन्नो वा कश्चिदृषिः, अवोचत् उक्तवान्। किमित्याह – पाङ्क्तं वा इदं सर्वं पाङ्क्तेनैव आध्यात्मिकेन, सङ्ख्यासामान्यात्, पाङ्क्तं बाह्यं स्पृणोति बलयति पूरयति एकात्मतयोपलभ्यत इत्येतत्।
Therefore, etat adhi-vidhāya, having imagined these thus; ṛṣiḥ, the Vedas or some seer endowed with this vision; avocat, said. What? That is being said: Pāṅktam vai idam sarvam, all this is verily constituted by five factors; pāṅktena eva, through the fivefold ones – the ones relating to the personal (ādhy-ātmika); spṛṇoti, one strengthens, fills up; pāṅktam, the external (bāhyam) fivefold ones, because of the similarity of number; that is to say, they are realized as identical.

एवं पाङ्क्तमिदं सर्वमिति यो वेद, स प्रजापत्यात्मैव भवतीत्यर्थः॥

The meaning is that, he who realizes all this (existence) as fivefold becomes identified with Prajā-pati Himself.
[•Constituted by the five elements.•]

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


व्याहृत्यात्मनो ब्रह्मण उपासनमुक्तम्। अनन्तरं च पाङ्क्तस्वरूपेण तस्यैवोपासनमुक्तम्।
The meditation on Brahman as identified with the Vyāhṛtis was stated (TaitU.1.51.6). Then followed a meditation on the same Brahman, conceived of as a fivefold entity (TaitU.1.7).

इदानीं सर्वोपासनाङ्गभूतस्य ओङ्कारस्योपासनं विधित्स्यते।
Now is being sought to be enjoined a meditation on Om which is involved as a factor in all meditations.

परापरब्रह्मदृष्ट्या हि उपास्यमान ओङ्कारः शब्दमात्रोऽपि परापरब्रह्मप्राप्तिसाधनं भवति; स ह्यालम्बनं ब्रह्मणः परस्यापरस्य च, प्रतिमेव विष्णोः, ‘एतेनैवायतनेनैकतरमन्वेति’ (PrasU.5.2) इति श्रुतेः –

For though Om is a mere word, it becomes a means for the attainment of the supreme Brahman or of Hiraṇya-garbha in accordance as it is meditated on with the idea of the supreme Brahman or of Hiraṇya-garbha. Just as an image is a symbol of Viṣṇu, so is Om verily a symbol of Brahman and Hiraṇya-garbha, in accordance with the Veda text: ‘(the illumined soul) attains either of the two through this one means alone (viz Om)’ (PrasU.5.2):
ओमिति, इतिशब्दः स्वरूपपरिच्छेदार्थः; ओम् इत्येतच्छब्दरूपं ब्रह्म इति मनसा धारयेत् उपासीत; यतः
Om iti: the word iti (this) is used for distinguishing the word Om as such (and not its meaning). One should contemplate in one’s mind, i.e. meditate, that Om, as a word, is Brahman.

ओम् इति इदं सर्वं हि शब्दस्वरूपमोङ्कारेण व्याप्तम्, ‘तद्यथा शङ्कुना’ (ChanU.2.23.3) इति श्रुत्यन्तरात्।
For Om iti idam sarvam, all this, that consists of sound, is Om - since everything is permeated by Om, in accordance with another Veda text: ‘For instance, (as all leaves are held together) by (their) midribs, (in this way all the words are joined together by Om)’ (ChanU.2.23.3).

‘अभिधानतन्त्रं ह्यभिधेयम्’ इत्यतः इदं सर्वमोङ्कार इत्युच्यते।
Since all that is nameable is dependent on names, it is said that all this is Om.

ओङ्कारस्तुत्यर्थ उत्तरो ग्रन्थः, उपास्यत्वात्तस्य।
The remaining passage is for the praise of Om, for it is to be meditated on.

ओम् इत्येतत् अनुकृतिः अनुकरणम्। करोमि यास्यामि चेति कृतमुक्त ओमित्यनुकरोत्यन्यः, अतः ओङ्कारोऽनुकृतिः। ह स्म वै इति प्रसिद्धार्थद्योतकाः। प्रसिद्धं ह्योंकारस्यानुकृतित्वम्। अपिओ श्रावय इति प्रैषपूर्वम् आश्रावयन्ति प्रतिश्रावयन्ति।
Om iti etat, this word that is Om; is anu-kṛtiḥ, a word of concurrence (lit. imitation). When somebody says, ‘I do’, or ‘I shall go’, another approves the act or speech by uttering the word Om. Therefore Om is imitation (approval). Ha, sma, and vai indicate something well known, for Om is well known as a word of imitation (concurrence). Api, moreover; āśrāvayanti, (they) make them recite; with the words of direction, ‘0 śrāvaya iti, Om, make (the gods) hear’.
[•The priests offering oblations, get the direction from their leader thus: “Om, make the gods hear the formulas for oblations”, and then they chant the mantras.•]

तथा ओम् इति सामानि गायन्ति सामगाः। ओं शोम् इति शस्त्राणि शंसन्ति शस्त्रशंसितारोऽपि।
Similarly, the singers of Sāmas, gāyanti, sing, (start singing); om iti, uttering the word Om. The reciters of the śastras, too, śaṃsanti, intonate; śastrāṇi, the śastras;
[•The Ṛk mantras set to tune are the Sāmas; those that are not so set are the śastras.•]
Om śom iti, by uttering the words ‘Om śom’.
{*Śam, meaning bliss, changes to śom, in om śom, uttered as an acceptance of the directions of the leading priest.•]

तथा ओम् इति अध्वर्युः प्रतिगरं प्रतिगृणाति
Similarly, the priest, Adhvaryu, pratigṛṇāti, utters; pratigaram, the encouraging words; om iti, with the word Om.
{*Adhvaryu is the priest in charge of the Yajur-mantras. The priest in charge of the Ṛg-mantras seeks his permission with the words “Om, may we pray”. And he replies, “Om, this will be pleasing to us.” Śaṅkarānanda, however, gives an alternative meaning thus: Pratigara is a rite; prati pratigaram, with regard to this rite; gṛṇāti, he utters (Om).•]

ओम् इति ब्रह्मा प्रसौति अनुजानाति। ओम् इति अग्निहोत्रम् अनुजानाति जुहोमीत्युक्ते ओम् इत्येव अनुज्ञां प्रयच्छति।
Om iti, by uttering Om, Brahmā, the priest called Brahmā (who is versed in all the Vedas and supervises the rites); prasauti, approves – makes them recite under direction. When told, ‘I shall pour oblation’, om iti agni-hotram anujānāti, he gives permission for the Agni-hotra sacrifice by uttering the word Om.

ओम् इति एव ब्राह्मणः प्रवक्ष्यन् प्रवचनं करिष्यन् अध्येष्यमाणः ओमिति आह ओमित्येव प्रतिपद्यते अध्येतुमित्यर्थः; ब्रह्म वेदम् उपाप्नवानि इति प्राप्नुयां ग्रहीष्यामीति उपाप्नोत्येव ब्रह्म
अथवा, ब्रह्म परमात्मानम् उपाप्नवानीत्यात्मानं प्रवक्ष्यन् प्रापयिष्यन् ओमित्येवाह। स च तेनोंकारेण ब्रह्म प्राप्नोत्येव।
Brāhmaṇaḥ, a Brāhmaṇa; pravakṣyan, when about to recite the Vedas, when intent on studying; āha, utters; om iti, the word Om; that is, he takes refuge in Om for the sake of study; under the idea, upāpnavāni iti, may I get – I shall acquire; brahma, the Vedas; upāpnoti eva brahma, he verily masters the Vedas.
Or, brahma means the supreme Self. (In this case the meaning is this): Pravakṣyan, wishing to make the Self attained; under the idea upāpnavāni iti, ‘May I attain, the supreme Self’; om iti āha, he utters the word Om; and he verily attains Brahman by means of that Om.

ओङ्कारपूर्वं प्रवृत्तानां क्रियाणां फलवत्त्वं यस्मात्, तस्मादोंकारं ब्रह्मेत्युपासीतेति वाक्यार्थः॥

The purport of the passage is that, since the activities which are undertaken with the utterance of Om become fruitful, Om should be meditated on as Brahman.

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


विज्ञानादेवाप्नोति स्वाराज्यमित्युक्तत्वात् श्रौतस्मार्तानां कर्मणामानर्थक्यं प्राप्तमित्येतन्मा प्रापदिति कर्मणां पुरुषार्थं प्रति साधनत्वप्रदर्शनार्थ इहोपन्यासः –
From the statement that knowledge alone leads to the attainment of sovereignty (TaitU.1.6.2), it may follow that the duties enjoined by Vedas and Smṛtis are useless. In order to avoid such a contingency, the duties are being presented here, so that they may be shown as contributory to the attainment of human goals:
ऋतम् इति व्याख्यातम्।
For that indeed is the austerity; for that indeed is the austerity. The word ṛtam has been explained.
[•TaitU.1.1.1: The definite ideas regarding duty imbibed from scriptures.•]

स्वाध्यायः अध्ययनम्।
Sva-adhyāyaḥ is study (of the scriptures).

प्रवचनम् अध्यापनं ब्रह्मयज्ञो वा।
Pravacanam is teaching (of the scriptures), or self-recital of the Vedas (called brahma-yajña).

एतानि ऋतादीनि, अनुष्ठेयानि इति वाक्यशेषः।
These, viz ṛta etc., are to he practised – this much is understood at the end of the sentence.

सत्यं सत्यवचनं यथाव्याख्यातार्थं वा।
And satyam means truthfulness in speech, or what has been explained earlier;
[•TaitU.1.1.1: Righteousness reduced to practice.•]

तपः कृच्छ्रादि। दमः बाह्यकरणोपशमः। शमः अन्तःकरणोपशमः।
Tapas is austerity etc.; damaḥ is the control of the outer organs; śamaḥ is the control of the inner organs.

अग्नयश्च आधातव्याः। अग्निहोत्रं च होतव्यम्।
Agnayaḥ, the fires – are to be kept up. And agni-hotram, the Agnihotra sacrifice – is to be performed.

अतिथयश्च पूज्याः। मानुषम् इति लौकिकः संव्यवहारः। तच्च यथाप्राप्तमनुष्ठेयम्।
And a-tithayaḥ, the guests – are to be adored. Mānuṣam means social good conduct; that too should be practised as the occasion demands.

प्रजा च उत्पाद्या। प्रजनश्च प्रजननम्; ऋतौ भार्यागमनमित्यर्थः। प्रजातिः पौत्रोत्पत्तिः; पुत्रो निवेशयितव्य इत्येतत्।
And prajā, progeny – is to be begotten. Prajanaḥ ca, and procreation in due time. Prajātiḥ is the raising of a grandson; in other words, the son is to be married.

सर्वैरेतैः कर्मभिर्युक्तस्यापि स्वाध्यायप्रवचने यत्नतोऽनुष्ठेये इत्येवमर्थं सर्वेण सह स्वाध्यायप्रवचनग्रहणम्। स्वाध्यायाधीनं ह्यर्थज्ञानम्। अर्थज्ञानाधीनं च परं श्रेयः। प्रवचनं च तदविस्मरणार्थं धर्मवृद्ध्यर्थं च। ततः स्वाध्यायप्रवचनयोरादरः कार्यः।
Learning and teaching are mentioned in all the contexts in order to imply that these two are to be carefully practised even by one who is engaged in all these duties; for the comprehension of meaning is dependent on study, and the supreme goal (emancipation) is dependent on the understanding of the meaning. And teaching is for the preservation of that memory and for the increase of virtue. Therefore one has to entertain a love for learning and teaching.

सत्यम् इति सत्यमेवानुष्ठेयमिति सत्यवचाः सत्यमेव वचो यस्य सोऽयं सत्यवचाः, नाम वा तस्य; राथीतरः रथीतरसगोत्रः राथीतर आचार्यो मन्यते।
Satyam, truth alone – is to be practised; iti, this is what; satya-vacāḥ, one whose speech consists of truth, or one whose name is Satya-vāca; Rāthītaraḥ, the teacher Rāthītara, born in the line of Rathītara, thinks.

तप इति तप एव कर्तव्यमिति तपोनित्यः तपसि नित्यः तपःपरः, तपोनित्य इति वा नाम; पौरुशिष्टिः पुरुशिष्टस्यापत्यं पौरुशिष्टिराचार्यो मन्यते।
Tapas, austerities alone – are to be undertaken; iti, this is what; tapo-nityaḥ, one who is ever (nitya) steeped in austerity (tapas), or whose name is Tapo-nitya; the teacher Pauru-śiṣṭiḥ, who is the son of Puru-śiṣṭi, thinks.

स्वाध्यायप्रवचने एव अनुष्ठेये इति नाको नामतः मुद्गलस्यापत्यं मौद्गल्य आचार्यो मन्यते। तद्धि तपस्तद्धि तपः। यस्मात्स्वाध्यायप्रवचने एव तपः, तस्मात्ते एवानुष्ठेये इति।
Svādhyāya-pravacane eva, learning and teaching alone – are to be practised; iti, this is what; the teacher Nākaḥ, Nāka by name; and Maudgalyaḥ, the son of Mudgala, thinks. Hi, since; tat, that – learning and teaching; verily constitute tapas, austerity; therefore they alone are to be followed – this is the idea.

उक्तानामपि सत्यतपःस्वाध्यायप्रवचनानां पुनर्ग्रहणमादरार्थम्॥

Although truth, austerity, learning, and teaching were mentioned earlier, they are dealt with over again in order to show solicitude for them.

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


अहं वृक्षस्य रेरिवेति स्वाध्यायार्थो मन्त्राम्नायः। स्वाध्यायश्च विद्योत्पत्तये, प्रकरणात्। विद्यार्थं हीदं प्रकरणम्, न च अन्यार्थत्वमवगम्यते। स्वाध्यायेन च विशुद्धसत्त्वस्य विद्योत्पत्तिरवकल्पते –
The mantra commencing with ‘aham vṛkṣasya reriva’ is introduced for the sake of self-recital (japa), and from the context it follows that the self-recital is for the sake of development of knowledge; for the present topic is concerned with knowledge, and no other purpose appears to be implied; moreover, it is considered that knowledge arises in one whose mind is purified by self-recital:
अहं वृक्षस्य उच्छेद्यात्मकस्य संसारवृक्षस्य रेरिवा प्रेरयिता अन्तर्याम्यात्मना। कीर्तिः ख्यातिः गिरेः पृष्ठम् इव उच्छ्रिता मम।
Aham, I – as the Self that rules from within – am; rerivā, the invigorator; vṛkṣasya, of the tree – the tree of saṃsāra (the world) which is subject to uprooting. My kīrtiḥ, fame – is high; iva, like; pṛṣṭham, the ridge; gireḥ, of a mountain.

ऊर्ध्वपवित्रः ऊर्ध्वं कारणं पवित्रं पावनं ज्ञानप्रकाश्यं परं ब्रह्म यस्य सर्वात्मनो मम, सोऽहमूर्ध्वपवित्रः;
Ūrdhva-pavitraḥ, I, the all-pervasive Self, whose ūrdhvam (cause, ūrdhva-mūla) is the pure supreme Brahman that is pavitram (purifying, revealable through knowledge), am ūrdhva-pavitraḥ.

वाजिनि इव वाजवतीव, वाजमन्नम्, तद्वति सवितरीवेत्यर्थः; यथा सवितरि अमृतम् आत्मतत्त्वं विशुद्धं प्रसिद्धं श्रुतिस्मृतिशतेभ्यः, एवं सु अमृतं शोभनं विशुद्धमात्मतत्त्वम् अस्मि भवामि।
Vājini iva is the same as vājavati iva; vājam is food, and (vājini means) in one that is possessed of food – that is to say, in the sun. Just as it is a fact, well known from hundreds of Veda and Smṛti texts, that the a-mṛtam, nectar, the reality of the Self, which is lodged in the sun, is pure; similarly, asmi, and I; the su a-mṛtam, beautiful, holy, reality of the Self.

द्रविणं धनं सवर्चसं दीप्तिमत् तदेव आत्मतत्त्वम्, अस्मीत्यनुवर्तते। ब्रह्मज्ञानं वा आत्मतत्त्वप्रकाशकत्वात्सवर्चसम्, द्रविणमिव द्रविणम्, मोक्षसुखहेतुत्वात्। अस्मिन्पक्षे प्राप्तं मयेत्यध्याहारः कर्तव्यः।
Sa-varcasam means effulgent; and draviṇam is wealth; (and) ‘I am that (wealth) which is the reality of the self’ the expression ‘I am’ is to be supplied. Or, Sa-varcasam means the knowledge of Brahman which is effulgent, inasmuch as it reveals the reality of the Self; and it is called wealth, being comparable to wealth because of its producing the bliss of emancipation. On this interpretation, ‘(this wealth) has been attained by me’, (and not ‘I am’) has to be supplied at the end.

सुमेधाः शोभना मेधा सर्वज्ञत्वलक्षणा यस्य मम, सोऽहं सुमेधाः, संसारस्थित्युत्पत्तिसंहारकौशलयोगात्सुमेधस्त्वम्;
I, whose wisdom (medhas) is beautiful (su), characterized by omniscience, that I am su-medhāḥ; this fine wisdom being due to (my) being endued with the skill of preserving, creating, and destroying the world.

अत एव अमृतः अमरणधर्मा, अक्षितः अक्षीणः अव्ययः अक्षतो वा, अमृतेन वा उक्षितः सिक्तः ‘अमृतोक्षितोऽहम्’ इत्यादि ब्राह्मणम्।
Therefore, I am a-mṛtaḥ, possessed of the attribute of immortality; (and) a-kṣitaḥ, inexhaustible, undecaying. Or, the (latter) word may be ukṣitaḥ, soaked in, i.e. soaked in a-mṛta, nectar; for there is a Brāhmaṇa text, too; ‘I am soaked in nectar.’

इति एवं त्रिशङ्कोः ऋषेः ब्रह्मभूतस्य ब्रह्मविदः वेदानुवचनम्, वेदः वेदनम् आत्मैकत्वविज्ञानम्, तस्य प्राप्तिमनु वचनं वेदानुवचनम्;
Iti, thus; was the veda-anu-vacanam – the statement (vacanam) after (anu) the attainment of the realization (vedaḥ, i.e. vedanam) of the unity of the Self; tri-śaṅkoḥ, of Tri-śaṅku – a seer who had known Brahman and become Brahman.

आत्मनः कृतकृत्यताप्रख्यापनार्थं वामदेववत्त्रिशङ्कुना आर्षेण दर्शनेन दृष्टो मन्त्राम्नाय आत्मविद्याप्रकाशक इत्यर्थः। अस्य च जपो विद्योत्पत्त्यर्थोऽधिगम्यते।
This statement (of his) was for the sake of expressing the fact that he had reached fulfilment, just like Vāma-deva (AitU.2.1.5). The idea is that the traditional text in the form of the mantra, as visualized by Tri-śaṅku with the eyes of a seer, reveals the knowledge of the Self. And it is understood that the self-repetition of this mantra is calculated to lead to knowledge.

‘ऋतं च’ इति धर्मोपन्यासादनन्तरं च वेदानुवचनपाठादेतदवगम्यते। एवं श्रौतस्मार्तेषु नित्येषु कर्मसु युक्तस्य निष्कामस्य परं ब्रह्म विविदिषोरार्षाणि दर्शनानि प्रादुर्भवन्त्यात्मादिविषयाणीति॥

From the introduction of duty in the chapter commencing with, ‘Righteousness and...’ (TaitU.1.9.1), and the conclusion later on with the text, ‘Thus was the statement after the attainment of realization’, it becomes evident that the visions of the seers, with regard to the Self etc., become revealed to one who engages thus in the obligatory duties enjoined in the Vedas and Smṛtis, who is devoid of selfish motives, and who hankers after the realization of the supreme Brahman.

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


वेदमनूच्येत्येवमादिकर्तव्यतोपदेशारम्भः प्राग्ब्रह्मात्मविज्ञानान्नियमेन कर्तव्यानि श्रौतस्मार्तानि कर्माणीत्येवमर्थः, अनुशासनश्रुतेः पुरुषसंस्कारार्थत्वात्।
The instruction about duties in the text commencing with ‘Vedam anūcya Having taught the Vedas’, is meant to indicate that before the realization of Brahman the duties inculcated in the Vedas and Smṛtis are to be performed regularly; because the Veda reference to post-instruction (i.e. instruction after the study of the Vedas, implied in anuśāsti) is meant for creating proper tendencies in a man;

संस्कृतस्य हि विशुद्धसत्त्वस्य आत्मज्ञानमञ्जसैवोपजायते। ‘तपसा कल्मषं हन्ति विद्ययामृतमश्नुते’ (मनु. १२-१०४) इति हि स्मृतिः। वक्ष्यति च – ‘तपसा ब्रह्म विजिज्ञासस्व’ (TaitU.3.2.1) इति।
For in accordance with the Smṛti, ‘He eradicates sin through austerities, and attains immortality through knowledge’ (M.XII. 104), the knowledge of the Self dawns easily on one who has the proper mental disposition and whose mind is purified. And this Upaniṣad will say, ‘Crave to know Brahman well through concentration’ (TaitU.3.2.1).

अतो विद्योत्पत्त्यर्थमनुष्ठेयानि कर्माणि।
Therefore, duties are to be undertaken so that knowledge may emerge.

अनुशास्तीत्यनुशासनशब्दादनुशासनातिक्रमे हि दोषोत्पत्तिः।
From the mention of injunction implied in the expression, ‘imparts this post-instruction’, it follows that guilt will be the consequence of transgression of the command.

प्रागुपन्यासाच्च कर्मणाम्, केवलब्रह्मविद्यारम्भाच्च पूर्वं कर्माण्युपन्यस्तानि।
Moreover, there is the fact of the earlier treatment of the rites etc. Rites etc. have been dealt with before the introduction of the absolute knowledge of Brahman.

उदितायां च ब्रह्मविद्यायाम् ‘अभयं प्रतिष्ठां विन्दते’ (TaitU.2.7.1) ‘न बिभेति कुतश्चन’ (TaitU.2.9.1) ‘किमहं साधु नाकरवम्’ (TaitU.2.9.1) इत्यादिना कर्मनैष्किंचन्यं दर्शयिष्यति।
And this Upaniṣad will show the absence of rites etc., after the rise of knowledge, in such passages as, ‘(Whenever the aspirant) gets fearlessly established (in Brahman)’ (TaitU.2.7.1), ‘(The enlightened man) is not afraid of anything’ (TaitU.2.9.1). ‘(Him, indeed, this remorse does not afflict): Why did I not perform good deeds?’ (TaitU.2.9.1).

अतः अवगम्यते – पूर्वोपचितदुरितक्षयद्वारेण विद्योत्पत्त्यर्थानि कर्माणीति। मन्त्रवर्णाच्च – ‘अविद्यया मृत्युं तीर्त्वा विद्ययामृतमश्नुते’ (IsU.11) इति ऋतादीनां पूर्वत्रोपदेशः आनर्थक्यपरिहारार्थः; इह तु ज्ञानोत्पत्त्यर्थत्वात्कर्तव्यतानियमार्थः –

Hence it is known that duties are calculated to lead to the dawn of knowledge through the eradication of sins accumulated in the past. And this is borne out by the Veda text: ‘Crossing over death through rites etc., one attains immortality through meditation’ (IsU.11). The earlier inculcation of ṛta (righteousness) etc., (TaitU.1.9.1) was for the sake of avoiding the idea of their uselessness. And the present instruction is for making an obligatory rule about their performance, they being ordained for leading to the rise of knowledge:
वेदम् अनूच्य अध्याप्य आचार्यः अन्तेवासिनं शिष्यम् अनुशास्ति ग्रन्थग्रहणात् अनु पश्चात् शास्ति तदर्थं ग्राहयतीत्यर्थः।
Anūcya, having instructed; vedam, the Vedas; ācāryaḥ, the teacher; anuśāsti, imparts a post-instruction; i.e. after (anu) the mastery of the verbal text, makes (śāsti) the ante-vāsinam, disciple, understand its meaning.

अतोऽवगम्यते अधीतवेदस्य धर्मजिज्ञासामकृत्वा गुरुकुलान्न समावर्तितव्यमिति। ‘बुद्ध्वा कर्माणि कुर्वीत’ इति स्मृतेश्च।
Hence it is implied that a student who has studied the Vedas should not leave his preceptor’s house without inquiring into the scriptural duties. And this is supported by the Smṛti: ‘One should begin the duties after understanding them’ (Ap. II. xxi. 5).

कथमनुशास्तीत्यत आह – सत्यं वद यथाप्रमाणावगतं वक्तव्यं च वद।
How does he instruct? The answer is: Satyam vada, speak the truth; satyam is that which accords with what is grasped through valid means of knowledge and is fit to be uttered; that thing vada, (you) speak.

तद्वत् धर्मं चर; धर्म इत्यनुष्ठेयानां सामान्यवचनम्, सत्यादिविशेषनिर्देशात्।
Similarly, dharmam cara, practise righteousness. Inasmuch as truth etc. are specifically mentioned, the word dharma (righteousness) is a generic term for all that is to be practised.

स्वाध्यायात् अध्ययनात् मा प्रमदः प्रमादं मा कार्षीः। आचार्याय आचार्यार्थं प्रियम् इष्टं धनम् आहृत्य आनीय दत्त्वा विद्यानिष्क्रयार्थम् आचार्येण च अनुज्ञातः अनुरूपान्दारानाहृत्य प्रजातन्तुं प्रजासंतानं मा व्यवच्छेत्सीः;
Sva-adhyāyāt, from study; mā pramadaḥ, make no deviation. Ācāryāya, for the preceptor; āhṛtya, having brought, having offered; priyam dhanam, the desirable wealth, in exchange for the knowledge; and having taken a worthy wife with his permission, mā vyavacchetsīḥ, do not break; prajā-tantum, the line of progeny; the family line should not be broken.

प्रजासन्ततेर्विच्छित्तिर्न कर्तव्या; अनुत्पद्यमानेऽपि पुत्रे पुत्रकाम्यादिकर्मणा तदुत्पत्तौ यत्नः कर्तव्य इत्यभिप्रायः, प्रजाप्रजनप्रजातित्रयनिर्देशसामर्थ्यात्; अन्यथा प्रजनश्चेत्येतदेकमेवावक्ष्यत्।
The idea is that even though a son is not begotten, effort should be made for his birth through such rites as the Putra-iṣṭi, which conclusion follows from the mention of the son, procreation, and getting a grandson (in TaitU.1.9.1); for, otherwise, the single word procreation would have been mentioned (there).

सत्यात् न प्रमदितव्यं प्रमादो न कर्तव्यः; सत्याच्च प्रमदनमनृतप्रसङ्गः; प्रमादशब्दसामर्थ्याद्विस्मृत्याप्यनृतं न वक्तव्यमित्यर्थः; अन्यथा असत्यवदनप्रतिषेध एव स्यात्।
Satyāt na pramaditavyam, there should be no negligence about truth. Inadvertence about truth is tantamount to falsehood. From the force of the word pramāda, inadvertence, it follows that a falsehood should not be uttered even through forgetfulness; this is the idea. Else there would have been a mere prohibition of untruthfulness.

धर्मात् न प्रमदितव्यम्, धर्मशब्दस्यानुष्ठेयविशेषविषयत्वादननुष्ठानं प्रमादः, स न कर्तव्यः, अनुष्ठातव्य एव धर्म इति यावत्।
Dharmāt na pramaditavyam: Since the word dharma relates to practices to be undertaken, the pramāda, inadvertence, consists in not undertaking the practices; that should not be done. That is to say, righteous actions must be undertaken.

एवं कुशलात् आत्मरक्षार्थात्कर्मणः न प्रमदितव्यम्
Similarly, kuśalāt, about an action meant for one’s own protection; na pramaditavyam.

भूतिः विभूतिः, तस्यै भूत्यै भूत्यर्थान्मङ्गलयुक्तात्कर्मणः न प्रमदितव्यम्
Bhūtiḥ means vibhūtiḥ, welfare; bhūtyai about that welfare, an activity meant for welfare, about propitious work; na pramaditavyam.

स्वाध्यायप्रवचनाभ्यां न प्रमदितव्यम्, ते हि नियमेन कर्तव्ये इत्यर्थः।
Svādhyāya-pravacanābhyām na pramaditavyam: Sva-adhyāya is learning, and pravacana is teaching; there should be no carelessness about them. The idea is that they should be regularly practised.

तथा देवपितृकार्याभ्यां न प्रमदितव्यम्, दैवपित्र्ये कर्मणी कर्तव्ये।
So also deva-pitṛ-kāryābhyām, from duties towards the gods and manes; na pramaditavyam, there should he no deviation; the duties towards the gods and manes must be performed.

मातृदेवः माता देवो यस्य सः, त्वं मातृदेवः भव स्याः।
Mātṛ-devaḥ is one to whom the mother is a deity; as such, you bhava, do become; mātṛ-devaḥ.

एवं पितृदेवो भव; आचार्यदेवो भव; अतिथिदेवो भव; देवतावदुपास्या एते इत्यर्थः।
Similarly, you become pitṛ-devaḥ, ācārya-devaḥ, a-tithi-devah: the idea is that these (father, teacher and guest) are to be worshipped as gods.

यानि अपि च अन्यानि अनवद्यानि अनिन्दितानि शिष्टाचारलक्षणानि कर्माणि, तानि सेवितव्यानि कर्तव्यानि त्वया। नो न कर्तव्यानि इतराणि सावद्यानि शिष्टकृतान्यपि।
Moreover, yāni karmāṇi, those activities; which are an-avadyāni, not blameworthy, which constitute the conduct of the good people; tāni sevitavyāni, they are to be resorted to – by you; na u itarāṇi, not the others – the others that are censurable are to be shunned, though they may be followed by the good people.

यानि अस्माकम् आचार्याणां सुचरितानि शोभनचरितानि आम्नायाद्यविरुद्धानि, तानि एव त्वया उपास्यानि अदृष्टार्थान्यनुष्ठेयानि; नियमेन कर्तव्यानीत्येतत्।
Yani, those that are; asmākam, our – of us teachers; su-caritāni, good conduct – not opposed to the scriptures; tāni, those – alone; upāsyāni tvayā, are to be performed by you, for the sake of unseen results; that is to say, they are to be undertaken regularly;

नो इतराणि विपरीतान्याचार्यकृतान्यपि।
(TaitU.1.11.3:) Na u itarāṇi, not the others, which are opposed (to these), though they are done by the teachers.

ये के च विशेषिता आचार्यत्वादिधर्मैः अस्मत् अस्मत्तः श्रेयांसः प्रशस्ततराः, ते च ब्राह्मणाः, न क्षत्रियादयः, तेषाम् आसनेन आसनदानादिना त्वया प्रश्वसितव्यम्, प्रश्वसनं प्रश्वासः श्रमापनयः; तेषां श्रमस्त्वया अपनेतव्य इत्यर्थः।
Ye ke ca asmat-śreyāṃsaḥ, those who are superior to, or more praiseworthy than, us – whoever they may be – by virtue of their distinction in teachership etc.; and are brāhmaṇāḥ, Brāhmaṇas – not Kṣatriyas and others; teṣām, of them; praśvasitavyam tvayā, the fatigue must be removed by you; āsanena, by the offering of a seat etc.; praśvasanam is the same as praśvāsaḥ, the removal of fatigue. The idea is that (their) fatigue should be removed by you.

तेषां वा आसने गोष्ठीनिमित्ते समुदिते, तेषु न प्रश्वसितव्यं प्रश्वासोऽपि न कर्तव्यः; केवलं तदुक्तसारग्राहिणा भवितव्यम्।
Besides (the sentence may be construed thus): Teṣām āsane, in their assemblage, when they are assembled for a meeting; na praśvasitavyam tvayā, (so much as) deep breathing (praśvāsaḥ) should not be done by you – you should only try to grasp the essence of what they say.

किं च, यत्किंचिद् देयम्, तत् श्रद्धया एव दातव्यम्। अश्रद्धया अदेयं न दातव्यम्।
Moreover, whatever is to be given, deyam, should he given; śraddhayā, with reverence; it a-deyam, should not be given; a-śraddhayā, disrespectfully.

श्रिया विभूत्या देयं दातव्यम्। ह्रिया लज्जया च देयम्भिया भीत्या च देयम्संविदा च मैत्र्य्यादिकार्येण देयम्
It deyam, should be offered; śriyā, according to (one’s) prosperity. And deyam, it should be given; hriyā, with modesty; also deyam, it should be given; bhiyā, with fear; and saṃvidā, with saṃvid, which means friendly action, etc.

अथ एवं वर्तमानस्य यदि कदाचित् ते तव श्रौते स्मार्ते वा कर्मणि वृत्ते वा आचारलक्षणे विचिकित्सा संशयः स्यात् भवेत्,
Atha, then – while you are conducting yourself thus; yadi, if – at any time; syāt, should there be; te, in you; karma-vicikitsā vā vṛtta-vicikitsā vā: vicikitsā, a doubt, with regard to the karmas, rites and duties, inculcated by the Vedas or Smṛtis, or with regard to vṛtta, conduct, consisting in customary behaviour–;

(TaitU.1.11.4:) ये तत्र तस्मिन्देशे काले वा ब्राह्मणाः तत्र कर्मादौ युक्ता इति व्यवहितेन संबन्धः कर्तव्यः; संमर्शिनः विचारक्षमाः, युक्ताः अभियुक्ताः, कर्मणि वृत्ते वा आयुक्ताः अपरप्रयुक्ताः, अलूक्षाः अरूक्षाः अक्रूरमतयः, धर्मकामाः अदृष्टार्थिनः अकामहता इत्येतत्; स्युः भवेयुः, ते ब्राह्मणाः यथा येन प्रकारेण तत्र तस्मिन्कर्मणि वृत्ते वा वर्तेरन्, तथा त्वमपि वर्तेथाः
Then vartethāḥ, you should behave; tathā, in that manner; yathā, as, the manner in which; tatra, with regard to that work or conduct; te, they those Brāhmaṇas; varteran, may behave; ye brāhmaṇāḥ, the Brāhmaṇas, who; syuḥ, may happen to be; tatra, at that time or place; (–this is to be connected with the remote word–) yuktāḥ, adepts; tatra, in those works etc.; (the Brāhmaṇas who are) sammarśinaḥ, able deliberators; yuktāḥ, adepts in duties or customs; a-yuktāḥ, not directed by others; a-lūkṣāḥ, i.e. a-rūkṣāḥ, not cruel (or not crooked) in disposition; dharma-kāmāḥ, desirous of merit, i.e. not moved by passion.

अथ अभ्याख्यातेषु, अभ्याख्याता अभ्युक्ताः दोषेण संदिह्यमानेन संयोजिताः केनचित्, तेषु च; यथोक्तं सर्वमुपनयेत् – ये तत्र इत्यादि। एषः आदेशः विधिः।
Atha, then; abhyākhyāteṣuabhyākhyātāḥ are those who are charged by somebody with some doubtful guilt; with regard to them also–; you should apply all the text, ye tatra etc., in the way as shown before.

एषः उपदेशः पुत्रादिभ्यः पित्रादीनामपि। एषा वेदोपनिषत् वेदरहस्यम्, वेदार्थ इत्येतत्। एतद् एव अनुशासनम् ईश्वरवचनम्, आदेशवाच्यस्य विधेरुक्तत्वात्। सर्वेषां वा प्रमाणभूतानामनुशासनमेतत्।
Esaḥ, this is; ādeśaḥ, (the scriptural) injunction; eṣaḥ, this is; the upadeśaḥ, instruction – to sons and others by fathers and others; eṣā, this is; veda-upaniṣat, the secret of the Vedas, i.e. the meaning of the Vedas. Etat, this is, verily; anuśāsanam, the behest of God (Īśvara) – for the word ādeśa has already been explained as (scriptural) injunction. Or, anuśāsanam means the direction of all those who are accepted as authoritative.

यस्मादेवम्, तस्मात् एवं यथोक्तं सर्वम् उपासितव्यं कर्तव्यम्। एवमु च एतत् उपास्यम् उपास्यमेव चैतत् नानुपास्यम् इत्यादरार्थं पुनर्वचनम्।
Since this is so, therefore, (all this) upāsitavyam, is to be done; evam, thus. Evam u ca etat upāsyam, and this must be done thus; this is not to be neglected. The repetition is to show regard.

अत्रैतच्चिन्त्यते विद्याकर्मणोर्विवेकार्थम् – किं कर्मभ्य एव केवलेभ्यः परं श्रेयः, उत विद्यासंव्यपेक्षेभ्यः, आहोस्विद्विद्याकर्मभ्यां संहताभ्याम्, विद्याया वा कर्मापेक्षायाः, उत केवलाया एव विद्याया इति।
Here, for the sake of distinguishing between knowledge and karma (i.e. scriptural rites and duties) we enter into a consideration of the question as to whether the supreme goal (param śreyas, emancipation) results from karmas alone (kevala), or from karmas aided (saṃvyapekṣā) by knowledge, or from karmas and knowledge in combination (saṃhata), or from knowledge aided (apekṣā) by karmas, or from knowledge alone.

तत्र केवलेभ्य एव कर्मभ्यः स्यात्, समस्तवेदार्थज्ञानवतः कर्माधिकारात् ‘वेदः कृत्स्नोऽधिगन्तव्यः सरहस्यो द्विजन्मना’ इति स्मरणात्। अधिगमश्च सहोपनिषदर्थेनात्मज्ञानादिना।
First opponent: As to that, the supreme goal must be the result of karmas alone, since a man who is versed in the full import of the Vedas is competent for karmas, in accordance with the Smṛti, ‘The Vedas, together with their secret, are to be mastered by the twice-born.’ And the mastery must be along with the purport of the Upaniṣads, which consists in the knowledge of the Self etc.

‘विद्वान्यजते’ ‘विद्वान्याजयति’ इति च विदुष एव कर्मण्यधिकारः प्रदर्श्यते सर्वत्र ज्ञात्वानुष्ठानमिति च।
Besides, in such terms as, ‘The man of knowledge performs a sacrifice’, ‘The knowing man gets the sacrifice performed’, it is shown everywhere that a man of knowledge alone has competence for karma. And there is the further text, ‘After knowing, follows the practice."
[•Seems to be an echo of BhG.16.24.•]

कृत्स्नश्च वेदः कर्मार्थ इति हि मन्यन्ते केचित्। कर्मभ्यश्चेत्परं श्रेयो नावाप्यते, वेदोऽनर्थकः स्यात्।
Some people verily consider that the Vedas, as a whole, are meant for karma. Now, if the supreme goal be unattainable through karma, the Vedas will become useless.

न; नित्यत्वान्मोक्षस्य। नित्यो हि मोक्ष इष्यते। कर्मकार्यस्य चानित्यत्वं प्रसिद्धं लोके। कर्मभ्यश्चेच्छ्रेयः, अनित्यं स्यात्; तच्चानिष्टम्।
Answer: No, for freedom is a permanent entity. That freedom is eternal is surely an admitted fact. It is a matter of common experience that anything that is produced by action is impermanent. Should liberation be a result of action, it will be transitory; and this is undesirable.
[•Since it contradicts the logically justifiable Veda text, ‘As in this world the result acquired through action gets exhausted, in the very same way the result acquired through virtue gets exhausted in the other world’ (ChanU.8.1.6).•]

ननु काम्यप्रतिषिद्धयोरनारम्भात् आरब्धस्य च कर्मण उपभोगेनैव क्षयात् नित्यानुष्ठानाच्च प्रत्यवायानुपपत्तेः ज्ञाननिरपेक्ष एव मोक्ष इति चेत्,
Objection: Since the obligatory karmas are undertaken,
[•Thereby warding off all latent suffering.•]
and since the works that are prompted by motives and those that are prohibited are not resorted to, and since the works that have begun to bear fruit (in this life) get consumed through enjoyment and suffering, emancipation follows independently of knowledge.

तच्च न, कर्मशेषसंभवात्तन्निमित्ता शरीरान्तरोत्पत्तिः प्राप्नोतीति प्रत्युक्तम्; कर्मशेषस्य च नित्यानुष्ठानेनाविरोधात्क्षयानुपपत्तिरिति च।
Answer: That, too, is inadmissible. For this was refuted by us by saying that, since there is the possibility of residual results of work, there lies the contingency of the production of a fresh body by them, and by saying that since the residual results of work are not opposed to the performance of obligatory duties, their elimination (by the latter) is illogical (see Introduction).

यदुक्तं समस्तवेदार्थज्ञानवतः कर्माधिकारादित्यादि, तच्च न; श्रुतज्ञानव्यतिरेकादुपासनस्य।
As for the assertion that a man, possessed of the full import of the Vedas, is competent for karma (and that, therefore, the supreme goal must be the result of karma), that, too, is wrong; for there is such a thing as meditation which is different from what is acquired by merely hearing the Vedas (at the house of the teacher).

श्रुतज्ञानमात्रेण हि कर्मण्यधिक्रियते, नोपासनज्ञानमपेक्षते। उपासनं च श्रुतज्ञानादर्थान्तरं विधीयते मोक्षफलम्; अर्थान्तरप्रसिद्धेश्च स्यात्;
Indeed, one becomes competent to undertake karmas from a mere knowledge got through hearing, and he need not have to wait for meditation; whereas meditation is enjoined apart from such Veda study (at the teacher’s house).
[•There is the general injunction about the study of the Vedas, to be sure. But the study may be merely of the verbal text or of its meaning as well. Besides, one need not know the meaning of all the texts to be qualified for rites and duties, since he can proceed to them after understanding those texts only that bear on them; the portion dealing with meditation may well be left over, since that portion is not necessary for these rites and duties.•]
And this meditation has emancipation as its result and is well known as different (from mere study).

‘श्रोतव्यः’ इत्युक्त्वा तद्व्यतिरेकेण ‘मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यः’ इति यत्नान्तरविधानात् मनननिदिध्यासनयोश्च प्रसिद्धं श्रवणज्ञानादर्थान्तरत्वम्।
Moreover, after having said, ‘(The Self) is to be heard (of)’, other efforts are enjoined by saying, ‘It is to be thought of and meditated on’ (BrhUEng.2.4.5); and deliberation and meditation are well known (in life) to be different from the knowledge acquired through hearing.
[•Śravaṇa (lit. hearing) means intelligent understanding of the import; manana (lit. thinking) means bringing conviction to oneself by deliberating on it and counteracting opposite ideas; and nididhyāsana (lit. concentrated meditation) means making it part of one’s being by constant meditation.•]

एवं तर्हि विद्यासंव्यपेक्षेभ्यः कर्मभ्यः स्यान्मोक्षः; विद्यासहितानां च कर्मणां भवेत्कार्यान्तरारंभसामर्थ्यम्; यथा स्वतो मरणज्वरादिकार्यारंभसमर्थानामपि विषदध्यादीनां मन्त्रसशर्करादिसंयुक्तानां कार्यान्तरारंभसामर्थ्यम्, एवं विद्याहितैः कर्मभिः मोक्ष आरभ्यत इति चेत्,
Second opponent: In that case, emancipation can result from karma aided (saṃvyapekṣā) by knowledge. Karma, as associated with knowledge, should have the power of producing a different result. Just as poison, curd, etc., which by themselves are calculated to effect death, fever, etc., can produce different results when mixed with sacred formulae, sugar, etc., similarly, emancipation is generated by karma when associated with knowledge.

न; आरभ्यस्यानित्यत्वादित्युक्तो दोषः।
Answer: No, for the defect was pointed out (by us) by stating that whatever is produced is impermanent.

वचनादारभ्योऽपि नित्य एवेति चेत्,
Objection: On the authority of scriptural text – [e.g. ‘He does not return again’ (ChanU.8.15.1)] – emancipation is eternal, though it is produced.

न; ज्ञापकत्वाद्वचनस्य। वचनं नाम यथाभूतस्यार्थस्य ज्ञापकम्, नाविद्यमानस्य कर्तृ। न हि वचनशतेनापि नित्यमारभ्यते, आरब्धं वा अविनाशि भवेत्।
Answer: No, for a scriptural text is only informative. A scriptural passage supplies information of a thing existing as such; it cannot create a thing that does not exist. Anything that is eternal cannot have a beginning, nor can anything be indestructible if it has a beginning – despite a hundred texts (to the contrary).

एतेन विद्याकर्मणोः संहतयोर्मोक्षारंभकत्वं प्रत्युक्तम्।
The third opponent answers: Hereby is refuted the view that knowledge and karma in their combination (saṃhata) can produce emancipation.

विद्याकर्मणी मोक्षप्रतिबन्धहेतुनिवर्तके इति चेत्,
Objection: Knowledge and karma remove the causes that hinder emancipation.
[•“The hindrances are ignorance, vice, etc. Knowledge and karma remove them; but they do not produce emancipation itself. Thus the continuance in one’s natural state (of freedom) can be eternal, since non-existence in the form of destruction (here – destruction of vice etc.) is known to be everlasting.”—A.G.•]

न; कर्मणः फलान्तरदर्शनात्। उत्पत्तिविकारसंस्काराप्तयो हि फलं कर्मणो दृश्यन्ते।
Answer: No, because karma is known to have a different effect; for karma is seen to result in creation, improvement (purification), transformation, or acquisition. And liberation is opposed to such results as creation etc.

उत्पत्त्यादिफलविपरीतश्च मोक्षः। गतिश्रुतेराप्य इति चेत् – ‘सूर्यद्वारेण’ ‘तयोर्ध्वमायन्’ (KathU.2.3.16) इत्येवमादिगतिश्रुतिभ्यः प्राप्यो मोक्ष इति चेत्,
Objection: Liberation is achievable in accordance with Veda texts that speak of courses (that are followed by departing souls). That liberation can be acquired is proved by such texts as: ‘They proceed by the path of the sun’ (MunU.1.2.11), ‘Going up through that (nerve)’, KathU.2.3.16).

न; सर्वगतत्वात् गन्तृभ्यश्चानन्यत्वात्। आकाशादिकारणत्वात्सर्वगतं ब्रह्म, ब्रह्माव्यतिरिक्ताश्च सर्वे विज्ञानात्मानः; अतो नाप्यो मोक्षः।
Answer: No, because it (i.e. liberation, being identical with Brahman) is all-pervasive and non-different from the goers. Brahman is omnipresent, because It is the (material) cause of ākāśa (space) etc.,
[•Which are the material causes of everything.•]
and all conscious souls are non-different from Brahman. And hence liberation is not (an) achievable (result).

गन्तुरन्यद्विभिन्नदेशं च भवति गन्तव्यम्। न हि, येनैवाव्यतिरिक्तं यत्, तत्तेनैव गम्यते। तदनन्यत्वसिद्धिश्च ‘तत्सृष्ट्वा तदेवानुप्राविशत्’ (TaitU.2.6.1) ‘क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि सर्वक्षेत्रेषु’ (BhG.13.2) इत्येवमादिश्रुतिस्मृतिशतेभ्यः।
A traveller has to reach a place which is different from himself. Not that the very place that is non-different from oneself can be reached by oneself. And this follows from the well-known fact of identity (of the individual and Brahman) gathered from hundreds of Veda and Smṛti texts such as: ‘That (Brahman), having created that (the world), entered into it’ (TaitU.2.6.1), ‘Know the individual soul also to be Myself’ (BhG.13.2).

गत्यैश्वर्यादिश्रुतिविरोध इति चेत् – अथापि स्यात् यद्यप्राप्यो मोक्षः, तदा गतिश्रुतीनाम् ‘स एकधा’ (ChanU.7.26.2) ‘स यदि पितृलोककामः भवति’ (ChanU.8.2.1) ‘स्त्रीभिर्वा यानैर्वा’ (ChanU.8.12.3) इत्यादिश्रुतीनां च कोपः स्यात् इति चेत्,
Objection: This (conclusion) runs counter to the Veda texts about courses (that the departing souls follow), and the glory (that they attain), etc. Moreover, if emancipation be unobtainable, not only will the texts mentioning courses be contradicted, it will also contradict such Veda texts as: ‘He becomes one, (three-fold, etc.)’ (ChanU.7.26.2); ‘Should he become desirous of the manes as objects of enjoyment, (the forefathers appear by his very wish)’ (ChanU.8.2.1); ‘(he moves about...) with women, or vehicles... (ChanU.8.12.3).

न; कार्यब्रह्मविषयत्वात्तासाम्। कार्ये हि ब्रह्मणि स्त्र्यादयः स्युः, न कारणे; ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (ChanU.6.2.1) ‘यत्र नान्यत्पश्यति’ (ChanU.7.24.1) ‘तत्केन कं पश्येत्’ (BrhU.2.4.14, BrhU.4.5.15) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः।
Answer: No, for they (i.e. those texts) relate to the conditioned Brahman. Women or others can exist only in the conditioned Brahman, but not in the unconditioned, according to such Veda texts as: ‘One only; without a second’ (ChanU.6.2.1); ‘Where one does not see anything else’ (ChanU.7.24.1); ‘What will one see there and with what?’ (BrhU.2.4.14, BrhU.4.5.15).

विरोधाच्च विद्याकर्मणोः समुच्चयानुपपत्तिः। प्रलीनकर्त्रादिकारकविशेषतत्त्वविषया हि विद्या तद्विपरीतकारकसाध्येन कर्मणा विरुध्यते।
Besides, the combination of knowledge and karma is not possible, because of their mutual contradiction. For knowledge – which relates to an entity in which all distinction of accessories, such as the agent, get merged – is antithetical to karma that has to be accomplished with accessories which are opposed to it (knowledge).

न ह्येकं वस्तु परमार्थतः कर्त्रादिविशेषवत् तच्छून्यं चेति उभयथा द्रष्टुं शक्यते। अवश्यं ह्यन्तरन्मिथ्या स्यात्।
Indeed, the same thing cannot be visualized as being in reality both possessed of such distinctions as agentship etc., and as devoid of them. Either of the two must of necessity be false.

अन्यतरस्य च मिथ्यात्वप्रसङ्गे युक्तं यत्स्वाभाविकाज्ञानविषयस्य द्वैतस्य मिथ्यात्वम्; ‘यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति’ (BrhU.2.4.14) ‘मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति’ (KathU.2.1.10) (BrhU.4.4.19) ‘अथ यत्रान्यत्पश्यति तदल्पम्’ (ChanU.7.24.1) ‘अन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मि’ (BrhU.1.4.10) ‘उदरमन्तरं कुरुते’ ‘अथ तस्य भयं भवति’ (TaitU.2.7.1) इत्यादिश्रुतिशतेभ्यः।
And when one or the other has to be false, it is reasonable that falsehood should pertain to duality which is the object of natural ignorance, in accordance with hundreds of Veda texts such as: ‘Because when there is duality, as it were, (then one smells something, one sees something, etc.)’ (BrhUEng.2.4.14); ‘He who sees as though there is difference here (in Brahman), goes from death to death’ (KathU.2.1.10; BrhUEng.4.4.19); ‘Hence, the finite is that where one sees something else’ (ChanU.7.24.1); ‘While he who worships another god (thinking), He is one and I am another (does not know)’ (BrhUEng.1.4.10); ‘For whenever this one (i.e. the aspirant) creates the slightest difference in It, (he is smitten with fear)’ (TaitU.2.7.1).

सत्यत्वं च एकत्वस्य ‘एकधैवानुद्रष्टव्यम्’ (BrhU.4.4.20) ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (ChanU.6.2.1) ‘ब्रह्मैवेदं सर्वम्’ (MunU.2.2.11) ‘आत्मैवेदं सर्वम्’ (ChanU.7.25.2) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः।
And truth belongs to unity, according to such Veda texts as: ‘It should be realized in one form only’ (BrhUEng.4.4.20), ‘One only, without a second’ (ChanU.6.2.1), ‘All this is but Brahman’ (See MunU.2.2.11); ‘All this is but the Self’ (ChanU.7.25.2).

न च संप्रदानादिकारकभेदादर्शने कर्मोपपद्यते।
Nor is karma possible without perceiving the difference implied by such (grammatical) cases as the Dative etc.

अन्यत्वदर्शनापवादाश्च विद्याविषये सहस्रशः श्रूयन्ते।
Besides, the denunciation of the perception of difference in the sphere of knowledge is to be met with at a thousand places in the Vedas.

अतो विरोधो विद्याकर्मणोः। अतश्च समुच्चयानुपपत्तिः।
Hence there is an opposition between knowledge and karma, and hence also is their combination impossible.

तत्र यदुक्तं संहताभ्यां विद्याकर्मभ्यां मोक्ष इत्येतदनुपपन्नमिति, तदयुक्तम्,
This being so, the statement that liberation is brought about by a combination of knowledge and karma is not justifiable.

तद्विहितत्वात्कर्मणां श्रुतिविरोध इति चेत् – यद्युपमृद्य कर्त्रादिकारकविशेषम् आत्मैकत्वविज्ञानं विधीयते सर्पादि-भ्रान्तिज्ञानोपमर्दकरज्ज्वादि-विषयविज्ञानवत्, प्राप्तः कर्मविधिश्रुतीनां निर्विषयत्वाद्विरोधः।
Objection: (On such an assumption) there is a contradiction of the Vedas, for karmas are enjoined (by them). If like the knowledge of the rope etc., meant for eradicating the false knowledge of the snake etc., the knowledge of the unity of the Self is inculcated for eradicating the distinction of such accessories as the agent etc., then a contradiction becomes inevitable, since the Veda injunctions about karma are left without any scope.

विहितानि च कर्माणि। स च विरोधो न युक्तः, प्रमाणत्वाच्छ्रुतीनामिति चेत्,
But as a matter of fact, karmas are enjoined, and that contradiction is inadmissible, since Veda texts are all means of valid knowledge.

न; पुरुषार्थोपदेशपरत्वाच्छ्रुतीनाम्। विद्योपदेशपरा तावच्छ्रुतिः संसारात्पुरुषो मोक्षयितव्य इति संसारहेतोरविद्यायाः विद्यया निवृत्तिः कर्तव्येति विद्याप्रकाशकत्वेन प्रवृत्तेति न विरोधः।
Answer: No, for the aim of the Vedas is to impart instruction in respect of human goals. That being so, the Veda texts which are devoted to the communication of knowledge engage themselves in the revelation of knowledge under the belief that since a man has to be liberated from the world, ignorance, which is the cause of the world, must be eradicated through knowledge. Hence there is no contradiction.

एवमपि कर्त्रादिकारकसद्भावप्रतिपादनपरं शास्त्रं विरुध्यत एवेति चेत्,
Objection: Even so, the scriptures establishing the existence of the accessories, viz agent etc., are certainly contradicted.

न; यथाप्राप्तमेव कारकास्तित्वमुपादाय उपात्तदुरितक्षयार्थं कर्माणि विदधच्छास्त्रं मुमुक्षूणां फलार्थिनां च फलसाधनं न कारकास्तित्वे व्याप्रियते।
Answer: No; the scriptures, assuming the hypothetical existence of the accessories, enjoin rites and duties for the wearing away of the accumulated sins of those who aspire for liberation, and also as a means for the achievement of fruits by those who hanker after results. (But) they do not concern themselves with establishing the reality of those accessories.

उपचितदुरितप्रतिबन्धस्य हि विद्योत्पत्तिर्नावकल्पते। तत्क्षये च विद्योत्पत्तिः स्यात्, ततश्चाविद्यानिवृत्तिः, तत आत्यन्तिकः संसारोपरमः।
For, the rise of knowledge cannot be imagined with regard to one who has the hindrance of accumulated sins. On the wearing away of those sins, knowledge will emerge; from that will follow the cessation of ignorance, and from that the absolute cessation of the world.

अपि च, अनात्मदर्शिनो ह्यनात्मविषयः कामः; कामयमानश्च करोति कर्माणि; ततस्तत्फलोपभोगाय शरीराद्युपादानलक्षणः संसारः।
Moreover, only a man who perceives something as non-Self has craving for that non-Self. And a man, impelled by desire, engages himself in works. From that follows the worldly state, consisting in embodiment etc., for the sake of enjoying the fruits of that desire.

तद्व्यतिरेकेणात्मैकत्वदर्शिनो विषयाभावात्कामानुपपत्तिः, आत्मनि चानन्यत्वात्कामानुपपत्तौ स्वात्मन्यवस्थानं मोक्ष इत्यतोऽपि विद्याकर्मणोर्विरोधः।
Contrariwise, for a man who sees the unity of the Self, there can arise no desire, since objects (of desire) do not exist. Besides, since desire cannot rise with regard to oneself, owing to non-difference, there ensues liberation consisting in being established in one’s own Self. From this also follows that knowledge and karma are contradictory.

विरोधादेव च विद्या मोक्षं प्रति न कर्माण्यपेक्षते। स्वात्मलाभे तु पूर्वोपचितदुरितप्रतिबन्धापनयनद्वारेण विद्याहेतुत्वं प्रतिपद्यन्ते कर्माणि नित्यानीति।
And just because of this opposition knowledge does not depend on karma so far as emancipation is concerned. But in the matter of attainment of one’s Self, the obligatory karma becomes the cause for the dawn of knowledge by way of removing the hindrance of accumulated sins. We have pointed out that this is the reason why karma have been introduced in the present context.

अत एवास्मिन्प्रकरणे उपन्यस्तानि कर्माणीत्यवोचाम। एवं च अविरोधः कर्मविधिश्रुतीनाम्। अतः केवलाया एव विद्यायाः परं श्रेय इति सिद्धम्।
Thus the Veda texts enjoining karmas are not at variance (with the Upaniṣads). Hence it is established that the highest goal is achievable through knowledge alone.

एवं तर्हि आश्रमान्तरानुपपत्तिः, कर्मनिमित्तत्वाद्विद्योत्पत्तेः। गृहस्थस्यैव विहितानि कर्माणीत्यैकाश्रम्यमेव। अतश्च यावज्जीवादिश्रुतयः अनुकूलतराः स्युः।
Objection: In that case there is no possibility of any other stage of life (āśrama). Inasmuch as the rise of knowledge is contingent on karma, and karma is enjoined in connection with the life of the householders, there can be only one stage of life. And from this point of view, the Veda texts such as, ‘One should perform the Agni-hotra sacrifice throughout one’s life’, become more apposite (anukūlatara).

न; कर्मानेकत्वात्। न ह्यग्निहोत्रादीन्येव कर्माणि, ब्रह्मचर्यं तपः सत्यवचनं शमः दमः अहिंसा इत्येवमादीन्यपि कर्माणि इतराश्रमप्रसिद्धानि विद्योत्पत्तौ साधकतमान्यसंकीर्णा विद्यन्ते ध्यानधारणादिलक्षणानि च। वक्ष्यति च – ‘तपसा ब्रह्म विजिज्ञासस्व’ (TaitU.3.2.1) इति।
Answer: No, for karmas are multifarious. Not that Agni-hotra etc. are the only karmas. There exist also such practices as celibacy, austerity, truthfulness, control of the external and internal organs, and non-injury, which are familiarly associated with the other stages of life, besides such practices as concentration, meditation, etc. – all of which are best calculated to serve as means for the origination of knowledge, since they are unadulterated (with sinful acts). This Upaniṣad also will declare, ‘Crave to know Brahman well through concentration’ (TaitU.3.2.1).

जन्मान्तरकृतकर्मभ्यश्च प्रागपि गार्हस्थ्याद्विद्योत्पत्तिसंभवात्, कर्मार्थत्वाच्च गार्हस्थ्यप्रतिपत्तेः, कर्मसाध्यायां च विद्यायां सत्यां गार्हस्थ्यप्रतिपत्तिरनर्थिकैव।
And since, even before entering the house-holder’s life, knowledge can emerge from the karmas undertaken in earlier lives, and since one embraces the householder’s life for the performance of karmas, its acceptance becomes certainly meaningless when one has already acquired the knowledge that is (held to be) the result of karmas (to be performed in domestic life).

लोकार्थत्वाच्च पुत्रादीनाम्। पुत्रादिसाध्येभ्यश्च अयं लोकः पितृलोको देवलोक इत्येतेभ्यो व्यावृत्तकामस्य, नित्यसिद्धात्मदर्शिनः, कर्मणि प्रयोजनमपश्यतः, कथं प्रवृत्तिरुपपद्यते?
Moreover, since sons etc. are meant for the (attainment of) – worlds, how can there be any lingering inclination for karma in one who has (already) desisted from all desires for these worlds – to wit, this world, the world of the manes, and the world of the gods, which are attainable through such means as sons (and karma and meditation) (BrhUEng.1.5.16) – who has attained the world of the Self that exists eternally, and who finds no need for karma?

प्रतिपन्नगार्हस्थ्यस्यापि विद्योत्पत्तौ विद्यापरिपाकाद्विरक्तस्य कर्मसु प्रयोजनमपश्यतः कर्मभ्यो निवृत्तिरेव स्यात्, ‘प्रव्रजिष्यन्वा अरेऽहमस्मात्स्थानादस्मि’ (BrhU.4.5.2) इत्येवमादिश्रुतिलिङ्गदर्शनात्।
Even for one who has accepted the life of a householder, there will surely be a cessation from karma after the rise of knowledge and after the renunciation of everything on the maturity of knowledge – when one feels no need for any karma, in accordance with the indication in such Veda texts as, ‘My dear (Maitreyī), I am going to renounce this life for monasticism’ (BrhUEng.4.5.2).

कर्म प्रति श्रुतेर्यत्नाधिक्यदर्शनादयुक्तमिति चेत्, – अग्निहोत्रादिकर्म प्रति श्रुतेरधिको यत्नः; महांश्च कर्मण्यायासः, अनेकसाधनसाध्यत्वादग्निहोत्रादीनाम्;
Objection: This is unsound, since the Vedas are at so much pains to prescribe karma. The Vedas display much solicitude for such karmas as Agni-hotra; and karmas involve great effort, since Agni-hotra etc., have to be performed with a variety of accessories.

तपोब्रह्मचर्यादीनां च इतराश्रमकर्मणां गार्हस्थ्येऽपि समानत्वादल्पसाधनापेक्षत्वाच्चेतरेषां न युक्तस्तुल्यवद्विकल्प आश्रमिभिस्तस्य इति चेत्,
And since the practices pertaining to the other stages of life, such as austerity, celibacy, etc., are equally present in the householder’s life, and since the other practices involve little trouble, it follows that a householder should not be placed on an equal (and) alternative footing with those in other stages of life.

न; जन्मान्तरकृतानुग्रहात्।
Answer: No, for (the dispassionate man) there is the favourableness ensured by practices in his previous lives.

यदुक्तं कर्मणि श्रुतेरधिको यत्न इत्यादि, नासौ दोषः, यतो जन्मान्तरकृतमप्यग्निहोत्रादिलक्षणं कर्म ब्रह्मचर्यादिलक्षणं चानुग्राहकं भवति विद्योत्पत्तिं प्रति; येन च जन्मनैव विरक्ता दृश्यन्ते केचित्; केचित्तु कर्मसु प्रवृत्ता अविरक्ता विद्याविद्वेषिणः।
As for the statement that ‘the Vedas are much at pains to enjoin karma’ etc., that is nothing damaging; for the karmas such as Agni-hotra, as also the practices of celibacy etc., undertaken in the past lives, become helpful to the rise of knowledge, because of which fact, some are seen to be non-attached to the world from their very birth, while others are seen to be engaged in karma, attached to the world, and averse to enlightenment.

तस्माज्जन्मान्तरकृतसंस्कारेभ्यो विरक्तानामाश्रमान्तरप्रतिपत्तिरेवेष्यते।
Accordingly, in the case of those who have become detached, owing to the tendencies created in the past lives, it is desirable only to resort to the other stage of life.

कर्मफलबाहुल्याच्च। पुत्रस्वर्गब्रह्मवर्चसादिलक्षणस्य कर्मफलस्यासंख्येयत्वात् तत्प्रति च पुरुषाणां कामबाहुल्यात्तदर्थः श्रुतेरधिको यत्नः कर्मसूपपद्यते, आशिषां बाहुल्यदर्शनात् – इदं मे स्यादिदं मे स्यादिति।
Since there is a profuseness of the results of karma – (i.e.) since there is a plethora of the results of karma, comprising progeny, heaven, glory of holiness, etc. –, and since people have an abundance of desire for those results, the great solicitude for karma evinced by the Śruti for achieving those results is reasonable: for it is a matter of experience that peoples’ desires expressed in such forms as ‘Let this be mine’ ‘May that one be mine’ are multifarious.

उपायत्वाच्च। उपायभूतानि हि कर्माणि विद्यां प्रति इत्यवोचाम। उपाये च अधिको यत्नः कर्तव्यः, न उपेये।
Moreover, since karmas are a means – (i.e.) since we have said that karmas are helpful to the rise of enlightenment –, one should pay more attention to the means rather than to the end.

कर्मनिमित्तत्वाद्विद्याया यत्नान्तरानर्थक्यमिति चेत् – कर्मभ्य एव पूर्वोपचितदुरितप्रतिबन्धक्षयाद्विद्योत्पद्यते चेत्, कर्मभ्यः पृथगुपनिषच्छ्रवणादियत्नोऽनर्थक इति चेत्,
Objection: Since enlightenment is caused by karma, there is no need for any other effort. If it is a fact that enlightenment emerges on the wearing away of obstacle of past accumulated sins through karmas alone, then apart from the karmas, it is needless to make any effort for the hearing (i.e. understanding) etc. of the Upaniṣads.

न; नियमाभावात्। न हि, ‘प्रतिबन्धक्षयादेव विद्योत्पद्यते, न त्वीश्वरप्रसादतपोध्यानाद्यनुष्ठानात्’ इति नियमोऽस्ति; अहिंसाब्रह्मचर्यादीनां च विद्यां प्रत्युपकारकत्वात्, साक्षादेव च कारणत्वाच्छ्रवणमनननिदिध्यासनादीनाम्।
Answer: No, for there is no restrictive rule about that. There is surely no such rule that knowledge arises from the mere elimination of the obstructions alone, and not from the grace of God or the practice of austerity, meditation, etc.; for (as a matter of fact) non-injury, celibacy, etc. are aids to enlightenment; and hearing, thinking, and meditating are the direct causes of it.

अतः सिद्धान्याश्रमान्तराणि। सर्वेषां चाधिकारो विद्यायाम्, परं च श्रेयः केवलाया विद्याया एवेति सिद्धम्॥

Hereby is established the need of other stages of life, and it is also proved that people in al[ the stages of life can aspire for knowledge, and that the supreme goal is attainable through knowledge alone.

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


अतीतविद्याप्राप्त्युपसर्गशमनार्थां शान्तिं पठति –
An invocation is being read for warding off the obstructions to the knowledge already dealt with:
शं नो मित्र इत्यादि। व्याख्यातमेतत्पूर्वम्॥
This has been explained before (TaitU.1.1.1).
[•The verbs in the second half are, however, put in the past tense. The translation of this half is: “I spoke of you as the immediate Brahman. I spoke of you as ṛta. I spoke of you as satya. He protected me. He protected the teacher. He protected me, protected the teacher.”•]

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

anu.2.01 anu.2.02 anu.2.03 anu.2.04 anu.2.05 anu.2.06 anu.2.07 anu.2.08 anu.2.09

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


अतीतविद्याप्राप्त्युपसर्गप्रशमनार्था शान्तिः पठिता। इदानीं तु वक्ष्यमाणब्रह्मविद्याप्राप्त्युपसर्गोपशमनार्था शान्तिः पठ्यते –
The invocation beginning with Śam no mitraḥ [•For “Śam no” etc. see TaitU.1.1.1•] was recited (at the end of the last Part) in order to avert the impediments to the acquisition of the knowledge set forth earlier. Now is being recited the invocation, śam no mitraḥ etc.:
[•Some books omit these references here to "Śam no” etc. in the commentary, as also the invocation itself.•]
as also saha na avavatu etc., for averting the obstacles to the acquisition of the knowledge of Brahman that is going to be stated:

स ह नाववतु, नौ शिष्याचार्यौ सहैव अवतु रक्षतु। स ह नौ भुनक्तु ब्रह्म भोजयतु। सह वीर्यं विद्यानिमित्तं सामर्थ्यं करवावहै निर्वर्तयावहै।
तेजस्वि नौ तेजस्विनोरावयोः अधीतं स्वधीतम् अस्तु अर्थज्ञानयोग्यमस्त्वित्यर्थः।
Sa ha avatu, may He protect, nau, us both – the teacher and the taught; saha, together. Sa ha bhunaktu, may He nourish; nau, us both. Karavāvahai, may we both accomplish; vīryam, strength – arising from knowledge etc.; saha, together.
Let the adhītam, study; nau, of us both – who are both bright; tejasvi astu, be brilliant; – let what we read be well read, i.e. let it be conducive to the comprehension of the meaning.

मा विद्विषावहै, विद्याग्रहणनिमित्तं शिष्यस्य आचार्यस्य वा प्रमादकृतादन्यायाद्विद्वेषः प्राप्तः; तच्छमनायेयमाशीः – मा विद्विषावहै इति। मैव नावितरेतरं विद्वेषमापद्यावहै।
There is occasion for ill-feeling on the part of the student in the matter of learning, as also on the part of the teacher, consequent on unwitting lapses; hence this prayer, ‘May we not cavil’ etc. is made in order to forestall this... Mā vidviṣāvahai, may we never entertain ill-feeling against each other.

शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः इति त्रिर्वचनमुक्तार्थम्।
The three repetitions, śāntiḥ, śāntiḥ, śāntiḥ – peace, peace, peace–, have been explained already (as meant for averting bodily, natural, and supernatural hindrances).

वक्ष्यमाणविद्याविघ्नप्रशमनार्था चेयं शान्तिः। अविघ्नेनात्मविद्याप्राप्तिराशास्यते, तन्मूलं हि परं श्रेय इति॥

Moreover, this invocation is for warding off the impediments to the knowledge that is going to be imparted. An unobstructed acquisition of the knowledge of the Self is being prayed for, since the supreme goal is dependent on that.


संहितादिविषयाणि कर्मभिरविरुद्धान्युपासनान्युक्तानि।
The meditations relating to conjoining (saṃhita) etc. that are not opposed to rites and duties have been stated (TaitU.1.3.1).

अनन्तरं च अन्तःसोपाधिकमात्मदर्शनमुक्तं व्याहृतिद्वारेण स्वाराज्यफलम्।
After that, with the help of the Vyāhṛtis, has been described the meditation on the conditioned Self within the heart (TaitU.1.51.6), which (meditation) culminates in the attainment of one’s sovereignty (TaitU.1.6.2).

न चैतावता अशेषतः संसारबीजस्य उपमर्दनमस्ति।
But thereby one does not achieve the total eradication of the seed of worldly existence (saṃsāra.

अतः अशेषोपद्रवबीजस्य अज्ञानस्य निवृत्त्यर्थं विधूतसर्वोपाधिविशेषात्मदर्शनार्थमिदमारभ्यते – ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परमित्यादि।
Hence is begun the text, brahma-vidyā āpnoti param etc., for the sake of realizing the Self as freed from the distinctions created by various limiting adjuncts, so that (as a result of the realization), ignorance which is the seed of all miseries, may cease.

प्रयोजनं चास्या ब्रह्मविद्याया अविद्यानिवृत्तिः, ततश्च आत्यन्तिकः संसाराभावः।
And the utility of this knowledge of Brahman is the cessation of ignorance; from that results the total eradication of worldly existence.

वक्ष्यति च – ‘विद्वान्न बिभेति कुतश्चन’ (TaitU.2.9.1) इति। संसारनिमित्ते च सति अभयं प्रतिष्ठां विन्दत इत्यनुपपन्नम्, कृताकृते पुण्यपापे न तपत इति च।
And the Upaniṣad will declare, ‘The enlightened man is not afraid of’ (TaitU.2.9.1), and that it is inconceivable to be established in a state of fearlessness so long as the causes of worldly existence persist (TaitU.2.7.1), and that things done and not done, virtue and vice, do not fill him with remorse (TaitU.2.9.1).

अतोऽवगम्यते – अस्माद्विज्ञानात्सर्वात्मब्रह्मविषयादात्यन्तिकः संसाराभाव इति।
Therefore it is understood that the absolute cessation of the worldly existence follows from this knowledge which has for its content Brahman that is the Self of all.

स्वयमेवाह प्रयोजनम् ‘ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम्’ इत्यादावेव संबन्धप्रयोजनज्ञापनार्थम्।
And in order to apprise us of its own relation and utility at the very beginning, the Upaniṣad itself declares its utility in the sentence, brahma-vid āpnoti param – the knower of Brahman reaches the highest.

निर्ज्ञातयोर्हि संबन्धप्रयोजनयोः विद्याश्रवणग्रहणधारणाभ्यासार्थं प्रवर्तते। श्रवणादिपूर्वकं हि विद्याफलम्, ‘श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यः’ (BrhU.2.4.5) इत्यादिश्रुत्यन्तरेभ्यः –

For one engages in hearing, mastering, cherishing, and practising a science only when its utility and relation are well known. The result of knowledge certainly succeeds hearing etc., in accordance with such other Veda texts as, ‘śrotavyaḥ mantavyaḥ nididhyāsitavyaḥ – It is to be heard of, reflected on and meditated upon’ (BrhUEng.2.4.5, 4.5.6):
ब्रह्मवित्, ब्रह्मेति वक्ष्यमाणलक्षणम्, बृहत्तमत्वात् ब्रह्म, तद्वेत्ति विजानातीति ब्रह्मवित्,
Brahma-vit, the knower of Brahman: Brahman is that whose characteristics will be stated and who is called Brahman because of (the etymological sense of) bṛhat-tamatva, being the greatest. He who vetti, knows, that Brahman is brahma-vit.

आप्नोति प्राप्नोति परं निरतिशयम्; तदेव ब्रह्म परम्; न ह्यन्यस्य विज्ञानादन्यस्य प्राप्तिः। स्पष्टं च श्रुत्यन्तरं ब्रह्मप्राप्तिमेव ब्रह्मविदो दर्शयति – ‘स यो हि वै तत्परमं ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति’ (MunU.3.2.9) इत्यादि।
He āpnoti, attains; param, the absolutely highest. That very Brahman (that occurs as the object of the verb, vid, to know) must be the highest (goal as well), since the attainment of something does not logically follow from the knowledge of something else and since another Veda text, viz ‘Anyone who knows that supreme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed’ etc., (MunU.3.2.9), clearly shows the attainment of Brahman Itself by the knower of Brahman.

ननु, सर्वगतं सर्वस्य चात्मभूतं ब्रह्म वक्ष्यति। अतो नाप्यम्।
Objection: The Upaniṣad will say that Brahman permeates everything and is the Self of all; hence It is not attainable.

आप्तिश्च अन्यस्यान्येन परिच्छिन्नस्य च परिच्छिन्नेन दृष्टा। अपरिच्छिन्नं सर्वात्मकं च ब्रह्मेत्यतः परिच्छिन्नवत् अनात्मवच्च तस्याप्तिरनुपपन्ना।
Moreover, one thing is seen to be attained by another – one limited thing by another limited thing. And Brahman is unlimited and identical with all; hence Its attainment – as of something that is limited and is different from one’s Self – is incongruous.

नायं दोषः। कथम्? दर्शनादर्शनापेक्षत्वाद्ब्रह्मण आप्त्यनाप्त्योः,
Answer: This is no fault. How? Because the attainment or non-attainment of Brahman is contingent on Its realization or non-realization.

परमार्थतो ब्रह्मस्वरूपस्यापि सतः अस्य जीवस्य भूतमात्राकृतबाह्यपरिच्छिन्नान्नमयाद्यात्मदर्शिनः तदासक्तचेतसः। प्रकृतसङ्ख्यापूरणस्यात्मनः अव्यवहितस्यापि बाह्यसंख्येयविषयासक्तचित्ततया
The individual soul (jīva), though intrinsically none other than Brahman, still identifies itself with, and becomes attached to, the sheaths made of food etc., which are external, limited, and composed of the subtle elements; and as (in the story) a man, whose mind is engrossed in the counting of others, misses counting himself, though that personality is the nearest to him and supplies the missing number.
[•Ten men, after crossing a river, were faced with the question, “Have we lost one of us in the stream?” So they went on counting themselves. But each one missed taking himself into account and concluded that they were only nine, one having actually been drowned. They then began wailing, when a passer-by found out their foolishness, counted them one by one, and then turning to the last counter said, “You are the tenth.” That reassured them.•]

स्वरूपाभावदर्शनवत् परमार्थब्रह्मस्वरूपाभावदर्शनलक्षणया अविद्यया अन्नमयादीन्बाह्याननात्मन आत्मत्वेन प्रतिपन्नत्वात् अन्नमयाद्यनात्मभ्यो नान्योऽहमस्मीत्यभिमन्यते।
Just so, the individual soul, under a spell of ignorance characterized by the non-perception of one’s own true nature as Brahman, accepts the external non-Selves, such as the body composed of food, as the Self, and as a consequence, begins to think, ‘I am none other than those non-Selves composed of food etc.’

एवमविद्यया आत्मभूतमपि ब्रह्म अनाप्तं स्यात्।
In this way, even though Brahman is one’s Self, It can remain unattained through ignorance.

तस्यैवमविद्यया अनाप्तब्रह्मस्वरूपस्य प्रकृतसङ्ख्यापूरणस्यात्मनः अविद्ययानाप्तस्य सतः केनचित्स्मारितस्य पुनस्तस्यैव विद्यया आप्तिर्यथा, तथा श्रुत्युपदिष्टस्य सर्वात्मब्रह्मण आत्मत्वदर्शनेन विद्यया तदाप्तिरुपपद्यत एव।
Just as through ignorance, there is a non-discovery (in the story) of the individual himself who makes up the requisite number, and just as there is the discovery of the selfsame person through knowledge when he is reminded of that personage by someone, similarly in the case of one, to whom Brahman in Its own nature remains thus unattained owing to his ignorance, there can quite reasonably be a discovery of that very Brahman by realizing that omnipresent Brahman to be none other than one’s own Self – a realization that comes through enlightenment consequent on the instruction of the scriptures.

ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परमिति वाक्यं सूत्रभूतं सर्वस्य वल्ल्यर्थस्य।
The sentence, ‘The knower of Brahman attains the highest’, is a statement in brief of the purport of the whole part (TaitU.2).

ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परमित्यनेन वाक्येन वेद्यतया सूत्रितस्य ब्रह्मणोऽनिर्धारितस्वरूपविशेषस्य सर्वतो व्यावृत्तस्वरूपविशेषसमर्पणसमर्थः
य लक्षणस्याभिधानेन स्वरूपनिर्धारणाय अविशेषेण च उक्तवेदनस्य ब्रह्मणो वक्ष्यमाणलक्षणस्य विशेषेण प्रत्यगात्मतया अनन्यरूपेण विज्ञेयत्वाय,
ब्रह्मविद्याफलं च ब्रह्मविदो यत्परप्राप्तिलक्षणमुक्तम्, स सर्वात्मभावः सर्वसंसारधर्मातीतब्रह्मस्वरूपत्वमेव, नान्यदित्येतत्प्रदर्शनाय च
एषा ऋगुदाह्रियते – तदेषाभ्युक्तेति।
The idea involved in quoting a Ṛg-mantra with the words, ‘Tad eṣā abhyuktā – here is a verse uttering that very fact’, are (as follows):
(First) It is sought to determine the true nature of Brahman through the presentation of a definition that is capable of indicating the totally free intrinsic nature of that very Brahman which was briefly referred to as a knowable entity in the sentence, ‘The knower of Brahman attains the highest’, but of which any distinct feature remained undetermined;
(Secondly) the knowledge of that Brahman having been spoken of (earlier) in an indefinite way, it is now sought to make that very Brahman, whose definition is going to be stated, realizable specifically as non-different from one’s own indwelling Self;
(And lastly) the idea is to demonstrate that the attainment of supreme Brahman by a knower of Brahman – which (attainment) is spoken of as the result of the realization of Brahman – is really nothing but identity with the Self of all, which is Brahman Itself transcending all worldly attributes.

तत् तस्मिन्नेव ब्राह्मणवाक्योक्तार्थे एषा ऋक् अभ्युक्ता आम्नाता।
Tat, with regard to what has been said by the brāhmaṇa portion (of the Upaniṣad); eṣā, this Ṛk (mantra); is abhyuktā, uttered–

सत्यं ज्ञानम् अनन्तं ब्रह्म इति ब्रह्मणो लक्षणार्थं वाक्यम्।
The sentence satyam jñanam an-antam brahmaBrahman is truth, knowledge, infinite – is meant as a definition of Brahman.

सत्यादीनि हि त्रीणि विशेषणार्थानि पदानि विशेष्यस्य ब्रह्मणः।
For the three words beginning with satya are meant to distinguish Brahman which is the substantive.

विशेष्यं ब्रह्म, विवक्षितत्वाद्वेद्यतया। वेद्यत्वेन यतो ब्रह्म प्राधान्येन विवक्षितम्, तस्माद्विशेष्यं विज्ञेयम्।
And from the fact that Brahman is intended to be spoken of as the thing to be known, it follows that Brahman is the substantive. Since Brahman is sought to be presented as the chief object of knowledge, the knowable must be the substantive.

अतः अस्माद्विशेषणविशेष्यत्वादेव सत्यादीनि एकविभक्त्यन्तानि पदानि समानाधिकरणानि।
And just because (Brahman and satya etc.) are related as the substantive and its attributes, the words beginning with satya have the same case-ending, and they stand in apposition (samāna-adhikaraṇa).

सत्यादिभिस्त्रिभिर्विशेषणैर्विशेष्यमाणं ब्रह्म विशेष्यान्तरेभ्यो निर्धार्यते।
Brahman, being qualified by the three adjectives, satya etc., is marked out from other nouns.

एवं हि तज्ज्ञातं भवति, यदन्येभ्यो निर्धारितम्; यथा लोके नीलं महत्सुगन्ध्युत्पलमिति।
Thus, indeed, does a thing become known when it is differentiated from others; as for instance, in common parlance, a particular lotus is known when it is described as blue, big, and sweet-smelling.

ननु, विशेष्यं विशेषणान्तरं व्यभिचरद्विशेष्यते, यथा नीलं रक्तं चोत्पलमिति;
Objection: A noun can be distinguished only when there is the possibility of its ruling out some other adjective (that does not belong to it), as for instance a blue or red lotus.

यदा ह्यनेकानि द्रव्याणि एकजातीयान्येकविशेषणयोगीनि च, तदा विशेषणस्यार्थवत्त्वम्; न ह्येकस्मिन्नेव वस्तुनि, विशेषणान्तरायोगात्;
An adjective is meaningful when there are many nouns which belong to the same class and which are capable of having many adjectives; but it can have no meaning with regard to a single noun, where there is no possibility of any alternative adjective.

यथा असावेक आदित्य इति, तथा एकमेव ब्रह्म, न ब्रह्मान्तराणि, येभ्यो विशेष्येत नीलोत्पलवत्।
There is a single Brahman, just as there is a single sun; there do not exist other Brahmans from which It can be distinguished, unlike a blue lotus that can be (marked out from a red one).

न; लक्षणार्थत्वाद्विशेषणानाम्। नायं दोषः। कस्मात्? लक्षणार्थप्रधानानि विशेषणानि, न विशेषणप्रधानान्येव।
No, there is nothing wrong, since the adjectives are used by way of definition (also). How? Since the adjectives (here) bear only a predominatingly defining sense (lakṣaṇa) and not a predominatingly qualifying sense (viśeṣaṇa).

कः पुनर्लक्षणलक्ष्ययोर्विशेषणविशेष्ययोर्वा विशेषः?
Objection: What again is the difference between the two relations – (1) that existing between the definition and the thing defined; and (2) that between the quality and the thing qualified?

उच्यते। सजातीयेभ्य एव निवर्तकानि विशेषणानि विशेष्यस्य; लक्षणं तु सर्वत एव, यथा अवकाशप्रदात्राकाशमिति। लक्षणार्थं च वाक्यमित्यवोचाम।
The answer is: An adjective distinguishes a noun from things of its own class, whereas a definition marks it out from everything else, as for instance, (the definition –) ākāśa is that which provides space. And we said that the sentence (under discussion) stands for a definition (lakṣaṇa).

सत्यादिशब्दा न परस्परं सम्बध्यन्ते, परार्थत्वात्; विशेष्यार्था हि ते।
The words satya etc. are unrelated among themselves, since they subserve something else; they are meant to be applied to the substantive only.

अत एव एकैको विशेषणशब्दः परस्परं निरपेक्षो ब्रह्मशब्देन सम्बध्यते – सत्यं ब्रह्म ज्ञानं ब्रह्म अनन्तं ब्रह्मेति।
Accordingly, each of the attributive words is related with the word ‘Brahman’, independently of the others thus: satyam brahma, jñānam brahma, an-antam brahma.

सत्यमिति यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं न व्यभिचरति, तत्सत्यम्। यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं व्यभिचरति, तदनृतमित्युच्यते।
As for satya a thing is said to be satya, true, when it does not change (na vyabhicarati) the nature that is ascertained to be its own; and a thing is said to be unreal when it changes the nature that is ascertained to be its own.

अतो विकारोऽनृतम्, ‘वाचारंभणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’ (ChanU.6.1.4) एवं सदेव सत्यमित्यवधारणात्। अतः ‘सत्यं ब्रह्म’ इति ब्रह्म विकारान्निवर्तयति।
Hence a mutable thing is unreal, for in the text, ‘All transformation has speech as its basis, and it is name only. Earth as such is the reality’ (ChanU.6.1.4), it has been emphasised that, that alone is true that exists (ChanU.6.2.1). So the phrase satyam brahma (Brahman is truth) distinguishes Brahman from mutable things.

अतः कारणत्वं प्राप्तं ब्रह्मणः। कारणस्य च कारकत्वम्, वस्तुत्वात् मृद्वत् अचिद्रूपता च प्राप्ता; अत इदमुच्यते – ज्ञानं ब्रह्मेति।
From this it may follow that (the unchanging) Brahman is the (material) cause (of all subsequent changes); and since a material cause is a substance, it can be an accessory (kāraka) as well, thereby becoming insentient like earth. Hence it is said that Brahman is jñānam.

ज्ञानं ज्ञप्तिः अवबोधः, – भावसाधनो ज्ञानशब्दः –
Jñāna means knowledge, consciousness. The word jñāna conveys the abstract notion (bhāva) of the verb jñā, (to know, jñapti), and being an attribute of Brahman along with truth and infinitude, it does not indicate the agent of knowing.

न तु ज्ञानकर्तृ, ब्रह्मविशेषणत्वात्सत्यानन्ताभ्यां सह। न हि सत्यता अनन्तता च ज्ञानकर्तृत्वे सत्युपपद्येते। ज्ञानकर्तृत्वेन हि विक्रियमाणं कथं सत्यं भवेत्, अनन्तं च? यद्धि न कुतश्चित्प्रविभज्यते, तदनन्तम्।
If Brahman be the agent of knowing, truth and infinitude cannot justly be attributed to It. For as the agent of knowing, It becomes changeful; and, as such, how can It be true and infinite? That, indeed, is infinite which is not separated from anything.

ज्ञानकर्तृत्वे च ज्ञेयज्ञानाभ्यां प्रविभक्तमित्यनन्तता न स्यात्, ‘यत्र नान्यद्विजानाति स भूमा, अथ यत्रान्यद्विजानाति तदल्पम्’ (ChanU.7.24.1) इति श्रुत्यन्तरात्।
If it be the agent of knowing, It becomes delimited by the knowable and the knowledge, and hence there cannot be infinitude, in accordance with another Veda text: ‘The Infinite is that where one does not understand anything else. Hence, the finite is that where one understands something else’ (ChanU.7.24.1).

‘नान्यद्विजानाति’ इति विशेषप्रतिषेधात् आत्मानं विजानातीति चेत्,
Objection: From the denial of particulars in the (above) statement, ‘One does not understand anything else’, it follows that one ‘knows’ the Self.

न; भूमलक्षणविधिपरत्वाद्वाक्यस्य। ‘यत्र नान्यत्पश्यति’ इत्यादि भूम्नो लक्षणविधिपरं वाक्यम्
Answer: No, for the sentence is intended to enunciate a definition of the Infinite. The sentence, ‘in which one does not see anything else’ etc., is devoted wholly to the presentation of the distinguishing characteristics of Brahman.

यथाप्रसिद्धमेव अन्योऽन्यत्पश्यतीत्येतदुपादाय यत्र तन्नास्ति, स भूमा इति भूमस्वरूपं तत्र ज्ञाप्यते। अन्यग्रहणस्य प्राप्तप्रतिषेधार्थत्वात् न स्वात्मनि क्रियास्तित्वपरं वाक्यम्।
Recognizing the well-known principle that one sees something that is different from oneself, the nature of the Infinite (bhūman) is expressed in that text by declaring that the Infinite is that in which that kind of action does not exist. Thus, since the expression, ‘anything else’, is used (in the above sentence) for obviating the recognized fact of duality, the sentence is not intended to prove the existence of action (the act of knowing) in one’s self.

स्वात्मनि च भेदाभावाद्विज्ञानानुपपत्तिः। आत्मनश्च विज्ञेयत्वे ज्ञात्रभावप्रसङ्गः, ज्ञेयत्वेनैव विनियुक्तत्वात्।
And since there is no split in one’s Self, cognition is impossible (in It). Moreover, if the Self be a knowable, there will remain no one else (as a knower) to know It, since the Self is already postulated as the knowable.

एक एवात्मा ज्ञेयत्वेन ज्ञातृत्वेन च उभयथा भवतीति चेत्,
Objection: The same self can exist both as the knower and the known.

न; युगपदनंशत्वात्। न हि निरवयवस्य युगपज्ज्ञेयज्ञातृत्वोपपत्तिः।
Answer: No, this cannot be simultaneously, since the Self is without parts. A featureless (indivisible) thing cannot simultaneously be both the knower and the known.

आत्मनश्च घटादिवद्विज्ञेयत्वे ज्ञानोपदेशानर्थक्यम्। न हि घटादिवत्प्रसिद्धस्य ज्ञानोपदेशः अर्थवान्।
Moreover, if the Self can be cognized in the sense that a pot is, (scriptural) instruction about Its knowledge becomes useless. For if an object is already familiar, just as a pot for instance is, the (Veda) instruction about knowing it can have no meaning.

तस्मात् ज्ञातृत्वे सति आनन्त्यानुपपत्तिः।
Hence if the Self be a knower, It cannot reasonably be infinite.

सन्मात्रत्वं चानुपपन्नं ज्ञानकर्तृत्वादिविशेषवत्त्वे सति; सन्मात्रत्वं च सत्यम्, ‘तत् सत्यम्’ (ChanU.6.8.7 – 16.3) इति श्रुत्यन्तरात्।
Besides, if It has such distinctive attributes as becoming the agent of knowing, It cannot logically be pure existence. And pure existence is truth, according to another Veda text, ‘That is Truth’ (ChanU.6.8.7 – 16.3).

तस्मात्सत्यानन्तशब्दाभ्यां सह विशेषणत्वेन ज्ञानशब्दस्य प्रयोगाद्भावसाधनो ज्ञानशब्दः। ‘ज्ञानं ब्रह्म’ इति कर्तृत्वादिकारकनिवृत्त्यर्थं मृदादिवदचिद्रूपतानिवृत्त्यर्थं च प्रयुज्यते।
Therefore the word jñāna (knowledge), having been used adjectivally along with truth and infinitude, is derived in the cognate sense of the verb, and it is used to form the phrase, jñānam brahma (Brahman is knowledge), in order to rule out (from Brahman) any relationship) between noun and verb as that of an agent etc., as also for denying non-consciousness like that of earth etc.

‘ज्ञानं ब्रह्म’ इति वचनात्प्राप्तमन्तवत्त्वम्, लौकिकस्य ज्ञानस्य अन्तवत्त्वदर्शनात्। अतः तन्निवृत्त्यर्थमाह – अनन्तमिति।
From the phrase, jñānam brahma, it may follow that Brahman is limited, for human knowledge is seen to be finite. Hence, in order to obviate this, the text says, an-antam, infinite.

सत्यादीनामनृतादिधर्मनिवृत्तिपरत्वाद्विशेष्यस्य च ब्रह्मणः उत्पलादिवदप्रसिद्धत्वात् ‘मृगतृष्णांभसि स्नातः खपुष्पकृतशेखरः। एष वन्ध्यासुतो याति शशशृङ्गधनुर्धरः’ इतिवत् शून्यार्थतैव प्राप्ता सत्यादिवाक्यस्येति चेत्,
Objection: Since the words, satya (truth) etc., are meant only for negating such qualities as untruth, and since the substantive Brahman is not a well known entity like a lotus, the sentence beginning with satya has nothing but a non-entity as its content, just as it is the case with the sentence, ‘Having bathed in the water of the mirage, and having put a crown of sky-flowers on his head, there goes the son of a barren woman, armed with a bow made of a hare’s horn.’

न; लक्षणार्थत्वात्। विशेषणत्वेऽपि सत्यादीनां लक्षणार्थप्राधान्यमित्यवोचाम।
Answer: No, for the sentence is meant as a definition. And we said that even though satya etc. are attributive words, their chief aim is to define.

शून्ये हि लक्ष्ये अनर्थकं लक्षणवचनम्। अतः लक्षणार्थत्वान्मन्यामहे न शून्यार्थतेति।
Since a sentence, stating the differentia of a non-existing substantive, is useless, and since the present sentence is meant to define, it does not, in our opinion, relate to a nonentity.

विशेषणार्थत्वेऽपि च सत्यादीनां स्वार्थापरित्याग एव।
Should even satya etc. have an adjectival sense, they certainly do not give up their own meanings.
[•“Etymologically, the word satya indicates an existing entity that is not sublated; the word jñāna means the self-revealing cognition of things; and the word an-anta is used with regard to something pervasive, as in (the expression) ‘the sky is infinite’ etc. Hence they negate opposite ideas by the very fact of their imparting their own meanings to the substantives. Therefore they cannot be reduced to mere negation.”—AG.•]

शून्यार्थत्वे हि सत्यादिशब्दानां विशेष्यनियन्तृत्वानुपपत्तिः। सत्याद्यर्थैरर्थवत्त्वे तु तद्विपरीतधर्मवद्भ्यो विशेष्येभ्यो ब्रह्मणो विशेष्यस्य नियन्तृत्वमुपपद्यते।
If the words satya etc. mean a non-entity, they cannot logically distinguish their substantive. But if they are meaningful, as having the senses of truth etc., they can justifiably differentiate their substantive Brahman from other substantives that are possessed of opposite qualities.

ब्रह्मशब्दोऽपि स्वार्थेनार्थवानेव।
And the word Brahman, too, has its own individual meaning.
[•Derived from the root bṛh having the sense of growth, vastness, Brahman is that which is not limited by time, space or causation. Thus the word has its own positive import and cannot refer to a void.•]

तत्र अनन्तशब्दः अन्तवत्त्वप्रतिषेधद्वारेण विशेषणम्। सत्यज्ञानशब्दौ तु स्वार्थसमर्पणेनैव विशेषणे भवतः।
Among these words, the word an-anta becomes an adjective by way of negating finitude; whereas the words satya and jñāna become adjectives even while imparting their own (positive) senses (to the substantive).

‘तस्माद्वा एतस्मादात्मनः’ इति ब्रह्मण्येव आत्मशब्दप्रयोगात् वेदितुरात्मैव ब्रह्म। ‘एतमानन्दमयमात्मानमुपसंक्रामति’ (TaitU.2.8.5) इति च आत्मतां दर्शयति।
Since in the text, ‘From that Brahman indeed which is this Self, (was produced this space)’ (TaitU.2.1.1), the word Self (ātmā) is used with regard to Brahman Itself, it follows that Brahman is the Self of the cognizing individual; and this is supported by the text, ‘He attains this Self made of bliss’ (TaitU.2.8.5), where Brahman is shown to be the Self.

तत्प्रवेशाच्च; ‘तत्सृष्ट्वा तदेवानुप्राविशत्’ (TaitU.2.6.1) इति च तस्यैव जीवरूपेण शरीरप्रवेशं दर्शयति।
Moreover, it is Brahman which has entered (into men); the text, ‘having created that, (He) entered into that very thing’ (TaitU.2.6.1), shows the entry of that very Brahman into the body as the individual soul. Hence the cognizer, in his essential nature, is Brahman.

अतो वेदितुः स्वरूपं ब्रह्म। एवं तर्हि, आत्मत्वाज्ज्ञानकर्तृत्वम्; ‘आत्मा ज्ञाता’ इति हि प्रसिद्धम्, ‘सोऽकामयत’ (TaitU.2.6.1) इति च कामिनो ज्ञानकर्तृत्वप्रसिद्धिः; अतो ज्ञानकर्तृत्वात् ज्ञप्तिर्ब्रह्मेत्ययुक्तम्;
Objection: If thus Brahman be the Self, It becomes the agent of cognition, since it is a well-known fact that the Self is a knower. And from the text, ‘He desired’ (TaitU.2.6.1), it stands established that the one who desires is also an agent of cognition. Thus, Brahman being the cognizer, it is improper to hold that Brahman is consciousness.

अनित्यत्वप्रसङ्गाच्च; यदि नाम ज्ञप्तिर्ज्ञानमिति भावरूपता ब्रह्मणः, तदाप्यनित्यत्वं प्रसज्येत; पारतन्त्र्यं च, धात्वर्थानां कारकापेक्षत्वात्, ज्ञानं च धात्वर्थः; अतोऽस्य अनित्यत्वं परतन्त्रता च।
Besides, that (later conclusion) leads to Its impermanence. For even if it be conceded that jñāna (cognition) is nothing but consciousness, and thus Brahman has (only) the cognate sense (–knowledge–) of the verb (to know, and not the verbal sense of knowing), It (Brahman) will still be open to the charge of impermanence and dependence. For the meanings of verbs are dependent on the (grammatical) cases (of the nouns). And knowledge is a sense conveyed by a root (dependent on a noun). Accordingly, Brahman becomes impermanent as well as dependent.

न; स्वरूपाव्यतिरेकेण कार्यत्वोपचारात्।
Answer: No, since without implying that knowledge is separable from Brahman, it is referred to as an activity by way of courtesy (upacāra).

आत्मनः स्वरूपं ज्ञप्तिः न ततो व्यतिरिच्यते। अतो नित्यैव। तथापि बुद्धेरुपाधिलक्षणायाश्चक्षुरादिद्वारैर्विषयाकारपरिणामिन्याः ये शब्दाद्याकारावभासाः, ते आत्मविज्ञानस्य विषयभूता उत्पद्यमाना एव आत्मविज्ञानेन व्याप्ता उत्पद्यन्ते।
(To explain): Knowledge, which is the true nature of the Self, is inseparable from the Self, and so it is everlasting. Still, the intellect, which is the limiting adjunct (of the Self) becomes transformed into the shape of the objects while issuing out through the eyes etc. (for cognizing things). These configurations of the intellect in the shape of sound etc., remain objectively illumined by the Consciousness that is the Self, even when they are in an incipient state; and when they emerge as cognitions, they are still enlightened by that Consciousness.
[•In the incipient stage, they have the fitness to be illumined; and after emergence, they remain soaked in consciousness.•]

तस्मादात्मविज्ञानावभास्याश्च ते विज्ञानशब्दवाच्याश्च धात्वर्थभूता आत्मन एव धर्मा विक्रियारूपा इत्यविवेकिभिः परिकल्प्यन्ते।
Hence these semblances of Consciousness – a Consciousness that is really the Self are imagined by the non-discriminating people to be referable by the word knowledge bearing the root meaning (of the verb to know); to be attributes of the Soul Itself; and to be subject to mutation.

यत्तु ब्रह्मणो विज्ञानम्, तत् सवितृप्रकाशवत् अग्न्युष्णत्ववच्च ब्रह्मस्वरूपाव्यतिरिक्तं स्वरूपमेव तत्।
But the Consciousness of Brahman is inherent in Brahman and is inalienable from It, just as the light of the sun is from the sun or the heat of fire is from fire.

न तत्कारणान्तरसव्यपेक्षम्, नित्यस्वरूपत्वात्,
Consciousness is not dependent on any other cause (for its revelation), for it is by nature eternal (light).

सर्वभावानां च तेनाविभक्तदेशकालत्वात् कालाकाशादिकारणत्वात् निरतिशयसूक्ष्मत्वाच्च। न तस्यान्यदविज्ञेयं सूक्ष्मं व्यवहितं विप्रकृष्टं भूतं भवद्भविष्यद्वा अस्ति। तस्मात्सर्वज्ञं तद्ब्रह्म।
And since all that exists is inalienable from Brahman in time or space, Brahman being the cause of time, space, etc., and since Brahman is surpassingly subtle, there is nothing else whether subtle or screened or remote or past, present or future which can be unknowable to It. Therefore Brahman is omniscient.

मन्त्रवर्णाच्च ‘अपाणिपादो जवनो ग्रहीता पश्यत्यचक्षुः स शृणोत्यकर्णः। स वेत्ति वेद्यं न च तस्यास्ति वेत्ता तमाहुरग्र्यं पुरुषं महान्तम्’ (SvetU.3.19) इति। ‘न हि विज्ञतुर्विज्ञातेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वान्न तु तद्द्वितीयमस्ति’ (BrhU.4.3.30) इत्यादिश्रुतेश्च।
Besides, this follows from the text of the mantra: ‘Though He is without hands and feet, still He runs and grasps; though He is without eyes, still He sees; though He is without ears, still He hears. He knows the knowable, and of Him there is no knower. Him they called the first, great Person’ (SvetU.3.19). There are also such Veda texts as: ‘For the knower’s function of knowing can never be lost, because It is immortal; but (It does not know, as) there is not that second thing, (separated from It which It can know)’ (BrhUEng.4.3.30).

विज्ञातृस्वरूपाव्यतिरेकात्करणादिनिमित्तानपेक्षत्वाच्च ब्रह्मणो ज्ञानस्वरूपत्वेऽपि नित्यत्वप्रसिद्धिः।
Just because Brahman’s nature of being the knower is inseparable and because there is no dependence on other accessories like the sense-organs, Brahman, though intrinsically identical with knowledge, is well known to be eternal.

अतो नैव धात्वर्थस्तत्, अक्रियारूपत्वात्। अत एव च न ज्ञानकर्तृ; तस्मादेव च न ज्ञानशब्दवाच्यमपि तद्ब्रह्म।
Thus, since this knowledge is not a form of action, it does not also bear the root meaning of the verb. Hence, too, Brahman is not the agent of cognition. And because of this, again, It cannot even be denoted (vācya) by the word jñāna (knowledge).

तथापि तदाभासवाचकेन बुद्धिधर्मविशेषेण ज्ञानशब्देन तल्लक्ष्यते; न तु उच्यते, शब्दप्रवृत्तिहेतुजात्यादिधर्मरहितत्वात्।
Still Brahman is indicated (lakṣyate), but not denoted, by the word knowledge which really stands for a verisimilitude of Consciousness as referring to an attribute of the intellect; for Brahman is free from such things as class etc., which make the use of the word (knowledge) possible.

तथा सत्यशब्देनापि। सर्वविशेषप्रत्यस्तमितस्वरूपत्वाद्ब्रह्मणः बाह्यसत्तासामान्यविषयेण सत्यशब्देन लक्ष्यते ‘सत्यं ब्रह्म’ इति; न तु सत्यशब्दवाच्यं ब्रह्म।
Similarly, Brahman is not denoted even by the word satya (truth), since Brahman is by nature devoid of all distinctions. In this way, the word satya, which means external reality in general, can indirectly refer to Brahman (in such expressions) as ‘Brahman is truth’, but it cannot denote It.

एवं सत्यादिशब्दा इतरेतरसंनिधानादन्योन्यनियम्यनियामकाः सन्तः सत्यादिशब्दवाच्यात् निवर्तका ब्रह्मणः, लक्षणार्थाश्च भवन्तीति।
Thus the words truth etc., occurring in mutual proximity, and restricting and being restricted in turns by each other, distinguish Brahman from other objects denoted by the words, truth etc., and thus become fit for defining It as well.

अतः सिद्धम् ‘यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते अप्राप्य मनसा सह’ (TaitU.2.4.1) ‘अनिरुक्तेऽनिलयने’ (TaitU.2.7.1) इति च अवाच्यत्वम्, नीलोत्पलवदवाक्यार्थत्वं च ब्रह्मणः।
So, in accordance with the Veda texts, ‘Failing to reach which (Brahman), words, along with the mind turn back’ (TaitU.2.4.1), and ‘(Whenever an aspirant gets fearlessly established in this changeless, bodiless,) inexpressible, and unsupporting Brahman’ (TaitU.2.7.1), it is proved that Brahman is indescribable, and that unlike the construction of the expression, ‘a blue lotus’, Brahman is not to be construed as the import of any sentence.
[•Brahman cannot be comprehended through the common relationship of words and things denoted by them. Nor can It be denoted through the relationship of substance and quality.•]

तद्यथाव्याख्यातं ब्रह्म यः वेद विजानाति निहितं स्थितं
गुहायाम्, गूहतेः संवरणार्थस्य निगूढा अस्यां ज्ञानज्ञेयज्ञातृपदार्था इति गुहा बुद्धिः, गूढावस्यां भोगापवर्गौ पुरुषार्थाविति वा,
तस्यां परमे प्रकृष्टे व्योमन् व्योम्नि आकाशे अव्याकृताख्ये; तद्धि परमं व्योम, ‘एतस्मिन्खल्वक्षरे गार्ग्याकाशः’ (BrhU.3.8.11) इत्यक्षरसंनिकर्षात्;
Yaḥ veda, anyone who knows – that Brahman, described before; as nihitam, (hidden) existing; parame vyoman (i.e. vyomni), in the supreme space (which permeates its own effect, the intellect) – in the space which is called the Unmanifested (i.e. Māyā), that, indeed, being the supreme space in accordance with the Veda text, ‘By this Immutable (Brahman), 0 Gārgī, is the (Unmanifested) space (ākāśa, i.e. Māyā) pervaded’ (BrhUEng.3.8.11), where ākāśa occurs in the proximity of a-kṣara (Immutable);
[•“The Unmanifested called vyoman (space, ākāśa) is inherent in the intellect (guhā), which is the effect of the former. In that Unmanifested is placed Brahman. The element called ākāśa is not accepted here as the meaning of vyoman, since the element ākāśa cannot be called parama (supreme), it being an effect of Unmanifested ākāśa. Besides in the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka, the Unmanifested ākāśa and not the Element ākāśa, occurs in the proximity of Immutable Brahman (a-kṣara)”—A.G.•]
Guhāyām, in the intellect. Guhā, being derived from the root guh in the sense of hiding, means the intellect (buddhi), because in that intellect are hidden the categories, viz knowledge, knowable and knower; or because in this intellect are hidden the two human objectives (puruṣa-arthas, enjoyment and liberation.

‘गुहायां व्योमन्’ इति वा सामानाधिकरण्यादव्याकृताकाशमेव गुहा; तत्रापि निगूढाः सर्वे पदार्थास्त्रिषु कालेषु, कारणत्वात्सूक्ष्मतरत्वाच्च; तस्मिन्नन्तर्निहितं ब्रह्म। हार्दमेव तु परमं व्योमेति न्याय्यम्, विज्ञानाङ्गत्वेन व्योम्नो विवक्षितत्वात्।
Or, from the apposition (sāmāna-adhikaraṇya of guhā and vyoman) in the expression, guhāyām vyomni, the Unmanifested space (Māyā) itself is the guhā (cavity); for in that, too, are hidden all things during the three periods (of creation, existence, and dissolution), it being their cause as well as more subtle. In that (Māyā) is hidden Brahman. It is, however, reasonable to accept the space circumscribed by the cavity of the heart as the supreme space, for the text wants to present space here as a part of knowledge.
[•Brahman is placed, i.e. manifest as the witness, in the cavity of the intellect that is lodged in the space circumscribed by the heart, and It is directly perceived there as such. If, however, Brahman is placed in the Cosmic Unmanifested, i.e., in the principle called Māyā, It will become an object of indirect perception. And an indirect realisation cannot negate the direct superimposition that a man suffers from.•]

‘यो वै स बहिर्धा पुरुषादाकाशो यो वै सोऽन्तः पुरुष आकाशो योऽयमन्तर्हृदय आकाशः’ (ChanU.3.12.7–8) इति श्रुत्यन्तरात्प्रसिद्धं हार्दस्य व्योम्नः परमत्वम्।
The space within the heart is well known as the supreme space from the other Veda texts: ‘The space that is outside the individual (ChanU.3.12.7)... is the same as the space within the individual (ChanU.3.12.8) (and that again) is the same as the space within the heart’ (ChanU.3.12.9).

तस्मिन्हार्दे व्योम्नि या बुद्धिर्गुहा, तस्यां निहितं ब्रह्म तद्व्यावृत्त्या विविक्ततयोपलभ्यत इति। न ह्यन्यथा विशिष्टदेशकालसंबन्धोऽस्ति ब्रह्मणः, सर्वगतत्वान्निर्विशेषत्वाच्च।
(Thus the meaning of the sentence is:) Within the cavity that is the intellect, which is within the space defined by the heart, is nihitam, lodged, placed, Brahman; in other words, Brahman is perceived clearly through the function of that intellect; for apart from this perception, Brahman can have no connection, (in the sense of being lodged in), with any particular time or space, Brahman being all-pervasive and beyond all distinctions.

सः एवं ब्रह्म विजानन्; किमित्याह – अश्नुते भुङ्क्ते सर्वान् निरवशेषान् कामान् काम्यभोगानित्यर्थः।
Saḥ, he, one who has known Brahman thus – what does he do? The answer is – aśnute, he enjoys; sarvān, all without any exception; kāmān, desires, i.e. all enjoyable things.

किमस्मदादिवत्पुत्रस्वर्गादीन्पर्यायेण? नेत्याह – सह युगपत् एकक्षणोपारूढानेव एकयोपलब्ध्या सवितृप्रकाशवन्नित्यया ब्रह्मस्वरूपाव्यतिरिक्तया, यामवोचाम ‘सत्यं ज्ञानम्’ इति।
Does he enjoy the sons, heavens, etc. in sequence as we do? The text says: No; he enjoys all the desirable things, which get focussed into a single moment, saha, simultaneously – through a single perception which is eternal like the light of the sun, which is non-different from Brahman Itself, and which we called ‘truth, knowledge, infinite’.

एतत्तदुच्यते – ब्रह्मणा सहेति। ब्रह्मभूतो विद्वान् ब्रह्मस्वरूपेणैव सर्वान्कामान् सह अश्नुते। न तथा यथोपाधिकृतेन स्वरूपेणात्मनो जलसूर्यकादिवत्प्रतिबिम्बभूतेन सांसारिकेण धर्मादिनिमित्तापेक्षांश्चक्षुरादिकरणापेक्षांश्च सर्वान्कामान्पर्यायेणाश्नुते लोकः।
That very fact is described here as brahmaṇā saha, in identification with Brahman. The man of knowledge, having become Brahman, enjoys as Brahman, all the desirable things simultaneously; and he does not enjoy in sequence the desirable things that are dependent on such causes as merit etc. and such sense-organs as the eyes etc., as does an ordinary man identified with the worldly self which is conditioned by limiting adjuncts, and which is a reflection (of the supreme Self) like that of the sun on water.

कथं तर्हि? यथोक्तेन प्रकारेण सर्वज्ञेन सर्वगतेन सर्वात्मना नित्यब्रह्मात्मस्वरूपेण धर्मादिनिमित्तानपेक्षान् चक्षुरादिकरणानपेक्षांश्च सर्वान्कामान्सहाश्नुत इत्यर्थः। विपश्चिता मेधाविना सर्वज्ञेन। तद्धि वैपश्चित्यम्, यत्सर्वज्ञत्वम्। तेन सर्वज्ञस्वरूपेण ब्रह्मणा अश्नुत इति। इति-शब्दो मन्त्रपरिसमाप्त्यर्थः।
How then does he enjoy? As identified with the eternal Brahman which is omniscient, all-pervasive, and the Self of all, he enjoys simultaneously, in the manner described above, all the desirable things that are not dependent on all such causes as merit etc., and that are independent of the organs like the eyes etc. This is the idea. Vipaścitā means ‘with the intelligent One, (i.e.) with the Omniscient; for, that indeed is true intelligence which is omniscience. The idea is that, he enjoys in his identity with that all-knowing Brahman. The word iti is used to indicate the end of the mantra.

सर्व एव वल्ल्यर्थः ‘ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम्’ इति ब्राह्मण वाक्येन सूत्रितः। स च सूत्रितोऽर्थः संक्षेपतो मन्त्रेण व्याख्यातः।
The entire purport of the chapter is summed up in the sentence, ‘The knower of Brahman attains the highest’, occurring in the brāhmaṇa portion. And that pithy statement (aphorism) is briefly explained by the mantra (the Ṛk verse).

पुनस्तस्यैव विस्तरेणार्थनिर्णयः कर्तव्य इत्युत्तरस्तद्वृत्तिस्थानीयो ग्रन्थ आरभ्यते – तस्माद्वा एतस्मादित्यादिः।
Since the meaning of that very statement has to be elaborately ascertained again, the succeeding text, tasmād vā etasmāt etc., is introduced as a sort of a gloss to it.

तत्र च ‘सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म’ इत्युक्तं मन्त्रादौ; तत्कथं सत्यमनन्तं चेत्यत आह।
As to that, it has been said at the beginning of the mantra that Brahman is truth, knowledge, and infinite. The text proceeds to show how It is infinite truth (reality) (etc.).

त्रिविधं ह्यानन्त्यम् – देशतः कालतो वस्तुतश्चेति।
As to that, there are three kinds of infinitude – from the standpoint of space (deśataḥ), time (kālataḥ), and objects (vastutaḥ).

तद्यथा – देशतोऽनन्त आकाशः; न हि देशतस्तस्य परिच्छेदोऽस्ति। न तु कालतश्चानन्त्यं वस्तुतश्च आकाशस्य। कस्मात्? कार्यत्वात्। नैवं ब्रह्मण आकाशवत्कालतोऽप्यन्तवत्त्वम्। अकार्यत्वात्। कार्यं हि वस्तु कालेन परिच्छिद्यते। अकार्यं च ब्रह्म। तस्मात्कालतोऽस्यानन्त्यम्।
To illustrate: The sky (ākāśa, space) is unlimited from the point of view of space, for it is not limited in space. But the sky is not infinite as regards time or as regards (other) objects. Why? Since it is a product. Brahman is not thus limited in time like the sky, since It is not a product. For, a created thing is circumscribed by time, but Brahman is not created. Hence It is infinite from the point of view of time as well.

तथा वस्तुतः। कथं पुनर्वस्तुत आनन्त्यम्? सर्वानन्यत्वात्। भिन्नं हि वस्तु वस्त्वन्तरस्य अन्तो भवति, वस्त्वन्तरबुद्धिर्हि प्रसक्ताद्वस्त्वन्तरान्निवर्तते। यतो यस्य बुद्धेर्निवृत्तिः, स तस्यान्तः।
Similarly, too, from the point of view of objects. How, again, is established Its infinitude from the point of view of objects? Since It is non-different from everything. A thing that is different acts as a limitation to another. Indeed, when the intellect gets occupied with something, it becomes detached from something else. That (idea), because of which another idea becomes circumscribed, acts as a limit to the (latter) idea.

तद्यथा गोत्वबुद्धिरश्वत्वान्निवर्तत इत्यश्वत्वान्तं गोत्वमित्यन्तवदेव भवति। स चान्तो भिन्नेषु वस्तुषु दृष्टः। नैवं ब्रह्मणो भेदः। अतो वस्तुतोऽप्यानन्त्यम्। कथं पुनः सर्वानन्यत्वं ब्रह्मण इति, उच्यते – सर्ववस्तुकारणत्वात्। सर्वेषां हि वस्तूनां कालाकाशादीनां कारणं ब्रह्म।
To illustrate: The idea of cowhood is repelled (displaced) by the idea of horsehood; hence horsehood debars cowhood, and the idea (of cowhood) becomes delimited indeed. That limitation is seen in the case of distinct objects. Brahman is not differentiated in this way. Hence It has infinitude even from the standpoint of substances. How, again, is Brahman non-different from everything? The answer is: Because It is the cause of everything. Brahman is verily the cause of all things – time, space, etc.

कार्यापेक्षया वस्तुतोऽन्तवत्त्वमिति चेत्,
Objection: From the standpoint of objects, Brahman is limited by Its own effects.

न; अनृतत्वात्कार्यस्य वस्तुनः। न हि कारणव्यतिरेकेण कार्यं नाम वस्तुतोऽस्ति, यतः कारणबुद्धिर्विनिवर्तेत; ‘वाचारंभणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’ (ChanU.6.1.4) एवं सदेव सत्यमिति श्रुत्यन्तरात्।
Answer: No, since the objects that are effects are unreal. For apart from the cause, there is really no such thing as an effect by which the idea of the cause can become delimited. This fact is borne out by another Veda text which says that ‘All transformation has speech as its basis, and it is name only. Earth (inhering in its modifications), as such, is the reality (of all earthenwares)’ (ChanU.6.1.4); similarly, existence (i.e. Brahman that permeates everything) alone is true (ChanU.6.2.1).

तस्मादाकाशादिकारणत्वाद्देशतस्तावदनन्तं ब्रह्म। आकाशो ह्यनन्त इति प्रसिद्धं देशतः; तस्येदं कारणम्; तस्मात्सिद्धं देशत आत्मन आनन्त्यम्। न ह्यसर्वगतात्सर्वगतमुत्पद्यमानं लोके किञ्चिद्दृश्यते। अतो निरतिशयमात्मन आनन्त्यं देशतः।
Brahman, then, is spatially infinite, being the cause of space etc. For space is known to be spatially infinite; and Brahman is the cause of that space. Hence it is proved that the Self is spatially infinite. Indeed, no all-pervading thing is seen in this world to originate from anything that is not so. Hence the spatial infinitude of Brahman is absolute.

तथा अकार्यत्वात्कालतः; तद्भिन्नवस्त्वन्तराभावाच्च वस्तुतः। अत एव निरतिशयसत्यत्वम्।
Similarly, temporally, too, Brahman’s infinitude is absolute, since Brahman is not a product. And because there is nothing different from Brahman, It is infinite substantially as well. Hence Its reality is absolute.

तस्मात् इति मूलवाक्यसूत्रितं ब्रह्म परामृश्यते; एतस्मात् इति मन्त्रवाक्येन अनन्तरं यथालक्षितम्। यद्ब्रह्म आदौ ब्राह्मणवाक्येन सूत्रितम्, यच्च ‘सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म’ इत्यनन्तरमेव लक्षितम्, तस्मादेतस्माद्ब्रह्मण
By the word tasmāt, from that, is called to mind the Brahman that was aphoristically stated in the first sentence; and by the word etasmāt, from this, is called to memory the Brahman just as It was defined immediately afterwards in the mantra.

आत्मनः आत्मशब्दवाच्यात्; आत्मा हि तत् सर्वस्य, ‘तत्सत्यं स आत्मा’ (ChanU.6.8.7 – 16.3) इति श्रुत्यन्तरात्;
Ātmanaḥ, from the Self – from Brahman that was enunciated in the beginning in the words of the brāhmaṇa portion, and that was defined immediately afterwards as truth, knowledge, infinite (in the mantra); (i.e.) from that Brahman which is called the Self, for It is the Self of all, according to another Veda text, ‘It is truth, It is the Self’ (ChanU.6.8.7 – 16.3). Hence Brahman is the Self.

अतो ब्रह्म आत्मा; तस्मादेतस्माद्ब्रह्मण आत्मस्वरूपात् आकाशः संभूतः समुत्पन्नः। आकाशो नाम शब्दगुणः अवकाशकरो मूर्तद्रव्याणाम्।
From that Brahman which is identical with the Self, ākāśaḥ, space; sambhūtaḥ, was created. Ākāśa means that which is possessed of the attribute of sound (the one sense perception that comes from a great distance) and provides space for all things that have forms.

तस्मात् आकाशात् स्वेन स्पर्शगुणेन पूर्वेण च आकाशगुणेन शब्देन द्विगुणः वायुः, संभूत इत्यनुवर्तते।
Ākāśāt, from that space; vāyuḥ, air – which has two attributes, being possessed of its own quality, touch (as well as movement), and the quality, sound, of its cause (ākāśa). The verb, ‘was created’, is understood.

वायोः च स्वेन रूपगुणेन पूर्वाभ्यां च त्रिगुणः अग्निः संभूतः।
Vāyoḥ, from that air; was created agniḥ, fire – which has three attributes, being possessed of its own quality, colour (as well as heat), and the two earlier ones (of its cause, air).

अग्नेः च स्वेन रसगुणेन पूर्वैश्च त्रिभिः चतुर्गुणा आपः संभूताः।
Agneḥ, from fire; was produced, āpaḥ, water – with four attributes, being endowed with its own quality, taste (allows taste to happen in the mouth), and the three earlier ones (of fire).

अद्भ्यः स्वेन गन्धगुणेन पूर्वैश्च चतुर्भिः पञ्चगुणा पृथिवी संभूता।
Adbhyaḥ, from water; was produced pṛthivī, earth – with five attributes, consisting of its own quality, smell (as well as solidity), and the four earlier qualities (of its cause, water).

पृथिव्याः ओषधयः
Pṛthivyāḥ, from the earth; oṣadhayaḥ, the herbs.

ओषधीभ्यः अन्नम्
Oṣadhībhyaḥ, from the herbs; annam, food.

अन्नात् रेतोरूपेण परिणतात् पुरुषः शिरःपाण्याद्याकृतिमान्।
Annāt, from food, transformed into human seed (his seed and, we now know, her egg); (was created), puruṣaḥ, the human being (the body), possessed of the limbs: head, hands, etc.

स वै एष पुरुषः अन्नरसमयः अन्नरसविकारः पुरुषाकृतिभावितं हि सर्वेभ्योऽङ्गेभ्यस्तेजःसंभूतं रेतो बीजम्। तस्माद्यो जायते, सोऽपि तथा पुरुषाकृतिरेव स्यात्; सर्वजातिषु जायमानानां जनकाकृतिनियमदर्शनात्।
Saḥ vai eṣaḥ puruṣaḥ, that human being, such as he is; anna-rasamayaḥ, consists of the essence of food, is a transformation (vikāra) of the essence of food. Since the semen, the seed, emerging as it does as the energy from all the limbs, is assumed to be (the potential, the DNA) of the human shape, therefore the one that is born from it should also have the human shape; for in all classes of beings, the off-springs are seen to be formed after the fathers.

सर्वेषामप्यन्नरसविकारत्वे ब्रह्मवंश्यत्वे च अविशिष्टे, कस्मात्पुरुष एव गृह्यते?
Objection: Since all beings without exception are modifications of the essence of food and since all are equally descendants of Brahma, why is man alone specified?

प्राधान्यात्। किं पुनः प्राधान्यम्? कर्मज्ञानाधिकारः। पुरुष एव हि शक्तत्वादर्थित्वादपर्युदस्तत्वाच्च कर्मज्ञानयोरधिक्रियते,
Answer: Because of his preeminence. In what, again, does the pre-eminence consist? In his competence for karma and knowledge. For man alone, who is desirous (of results) and possessed of learning and capacity, is qualified for rites and duties as also for knowledge, by virtue of his ability, craving (for results), and non-indifference (to results).

‘पुरुषे त्वेवाविस्तरामात्मा स हि प्रज्ञानेन संपन्नतमो विज्ञातं वदति विज्ञातं पश्यति वेद श्वस्तनं वेद लोकालोकौ मर्त्येनामतमीक्षतीत्येवं संपन्नः; अथेतरेषां पशूनामशनायापिपासे एवाभिविज्ञानम्’ इत्यादि श्रुत्यन्तरदर्शनात्।
(This is proved) by the evidence of another Veda text: ‘In man alone is the Self most manifest, for he is the best endowed with intelligence. He speaks what he knows, he sees what he knows; he knows what will happen tomorrow; he knows the higher and lower worlds; he aspires to achieve immortality through mortal things. He is thus endowed (with discrimination), while other beings have consciousness of hunger and thirst only’ (Ai. A. II. iii. 2. 5) etc.

स हि पुरुषः इह विद्यया आन्तरतमं ब्रह्म संक्रामयितुमिष्टः।
The intention here is to make that very human being enters into the inmost Brahman through knowledge.

तस्य च बाह्याकारविशेषेष्वनात्मसु आत्मभाविताबुद्धिः विना आलम्बनविशेषं कंचित् सहसा आन्तरतमप्रत्यगात्मविषया निरालम्बना च कर्तुमशक्येति
But his intellect, that thinks of the outer particular forms, which are not selves, as selves, cannot without the support of some distinct object, be suddenly made contentless and engaged in the thoughts of the inmost indwelling Self.

दृष्टशरीरात्मसामान्यकल्पनया शाखाचन्द्रनिदर्शनवदन्तः प्रवेशयन्नाह – तस्येदमेव शिरः।
Therefore, on the analogy of the moon on the bough,
[•Though the moon is far away, it is at times spoken of as “the moon on the bough”, because she appears to be near it. The point is that, the idea of something, which escapes ordinary comprehension, is sought to be communicated with the help of something more tangible though, in reality, the two are entirely disparate.•]
the text takes the help of a fiction that has an affinity with the identification of the Self and the perceived body; and leading thereby the intellect inward, the text says, tasya idam eva śiraḥ:

तस्य अस्य पुरुषस्यान्नरसमयस्य इदमेव शिरः प्रसिद्धम्। प्राणमयादिष्वशिरसां शिरस्त्वदर्शनादिहापि तत्प्रसङ्गो मा भूदिति इदमेव शिर इत्युच्यते।
Tasya, of that human being who is such and who is a modification of the essence of food, idam eva śiraḥ, this is verily the head – that is well known. The text, ‘This is verily the head’, is stated lest somebody should think that the head is to be imagined here just as it is in the case of the vital body etc., where things that are not heads are imagined to be so.

एवं पक्षादिषु योजना। अयं दक्षिणो बाहुः पूर्वाभिमुखस्य दक्षिणः पक्षःअयं सव्यो बाहुः उत्तरः पक्षः
Similar is the construction in the case of the side etc. Ayam, this, the right hand of a man facing east; is the dakṣiṇaḥ pakṣaḥ, the southern side. Ayam, this – the left hand; is the uttaraḥ pakṣaḥ, the northern side.

अयं मध्यमो देहभागः आत्मा अङ्गानाम्, ‘मध्यं ह्येषामङ्गानामात्मा’ इति श्रुतेः।
Ayam, this – the middle portion (trunk) of the body; is the ātmā, self, soul of the limbs, in accordance with the Veda text, ‘The middle of these limbs is verily their soul’.

इदम् इति नाभेरधस्ताद्यदङ्गम्, तत् पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा। प्रतितिष्ठत्यनयेति प्रतिष्ठा। पुच्छमिव पुच्छम्, अधोलम्बनसामान्यात्, यथा गोः पुच्छम्।
Idam, this – the portion of the body below the navel; is the puccham pratiṣṭhā, the tail that stabilizes. Pratiṣṭhā derivatively means that by which one remains in position. The puccha (here) is that which is comparable to a tail, on the analogy of hanging down, as does the tail of a cow.

एतत्प्रकृत्य उत्तरेषां प्राणमयादीनां रूपकत्वसिद्धिः, मूषानिषिक्तद्रुतताम्रप्रतिमावत्।
On this pattern is established the symbolism in the case of the succeeding vital body etc., just as an image takes its shape from molten copper poured into a crucible.

तद् अपि एष श्लोको भवति। तत् तस्मिन्नेवार्थे ब्राह्मणोक्ते अन्नमयात्मप्रकाशके एष श्लोकः मन्त्रः भवति

Tat api, as to that also, illustrative of that very idea contained in the brāhmaṇa portion; eṣaḥ bhavati ślokaḥ, here occurs a verse – which presents the self made of food.

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


अन्नात् रसादिभावपरिणतात्, वै इति स्मरणार्थः, प्रजाः स्थावरजङ्गमात्मकाः, प्रजायन्तेयाः काश्च अविशिष्टाः पृथिवीं श्रिताः पृथिवीमाश्रिताः, ताः सर्वा अन्नादेव प्रजायन्ते।
Annāt, from food – transformed into the state of chyle etc.; prajāḥ, the living beings – moving or stationary; prajāyante, take birth; (the living beings), yāḥ kāḥ ca, whichever (they be) – without distinction; who, pṛthivīm śritāḥ, rest on, have taken as their resort, the earth – all of them are verily born from food. The word vai is used for calling up to memory (something mentioned earlier).

अथो अपि, जाताः अन्नेनैव जीवन्ति प्राणान्धारयन्ति, वर्धन्त इत्यर्थः।
Atha u, moreover, when born; annena eva, by food, indeed; they jīvanti, live – preserve their lives, i.e. grow.

अथ अपि, एनत् अन्नम्, अपियन्ति अपिगच्छन्ति, अपि शब्दः प्रतिशब्दार्थे, अन्नं प्रति लीयन्त इत्यर्थः; अन्ततः अन्ते जीवनलक्षणाया वृत्तेः परिसमाप्तौ।
Atha, besides; antataḥ, at the end, at the conclusion of the growth that is indicative of life; api-yanti, (they) move towards – the prefix api being used in the sense of towards; enat, it, i.e. food; the idea is that they get absorbed advancing in the direction of food, (and culminating in food).

कस्मात्? अन्नं हि यस्मात् भूतानां प्राणिनां ज्येष्ठं प्रथमजम्। अन्नमयादीनां हि इतरेषां भूतानां कारणमन्नम्; अतः अन्नप्रभवा अन्नजीवना अन्नप्रलयाश्च सर्वाः प्रजाः।
Why? Hi, since; annam, food; is jyeṣṭham, the first born; bhūtānām, of all beings. Since food is the source of all the other creatures beginning with those made of food, therefore all living beings originate from food, live on food, and merge into food.

यस्माच्चैवम्, तस्मात् सर्वौषधं सर्वप्राणिनां देहदाहप्रशमनमन्नम् उच्यते
Since this is so, tasmāt, therefore; food is ucyate, called; sarva-auṣadham, a medicine for all, a curative that alleviates the bodily discomfort of all creatures.

अन्नब्रह्मविदः फलमुच्यते – सर्वं वै ते समस्तम् अन्नजातम् आप्नुवन्ति। के? ये अन्नं ब्रह्म यथोक्तम् उपासते। कथम्? अन्नजोऽन्नात्मान्नप्रलयोऽहम्, तस्मादन्नं ब्रह्म इति।
The goal achieved by the knower of food as Brahman is being stated: Te, they; āpnuvanti, acquire; sarvam vai annam, all the food. Who? Ye, those who; upāsate, meditate on; annam brahma, food as Brahman – as shown earlier. How? Thus: ‘I am born of food, am identical with food, and merge in food. Therefore food is Brahman.’

कुतः पुनः सर्वान्नप्राप्तिफलमन्नात्मोपासनमिति, उच्यते – अन्नं हि भूतानां ज्येष्ठं भूतेभ्यः पूर्वमुत्पन्नत्वाज्ज्येष्ठं हि यस्मात्, तस्मात् सर्वौषधमुच्यते; तस्मादुपपन्ना सर्वान्नात्मोपासकस्य सर्वान्नप्राप्तिः।
How, again, does the meditation on food, as identical with oneself, result in the acquisition of all the food? The answer is: Hi annam jyeṣṭham bhūtānām, since food is the first born of all beings – since it is the eldest, being born before all the creatures; tasmāt sarva-auṣadham ucyate (see ante). Therefore it is logical that one who worships all food as identical with oneself should acquire all food.

अन्नाद्भूतानि जायन्ते, जातान्यन्नेन वर्धन्ते इति उपसंहारार्थं पुनर्वचनम्।
The repetition of ‘annāt bhūtāni jāyante, from food originate all creatures; jātāni annena vardhante, when born they grow through food’ is for the sake of summing up.

इदानीमन्नशब्दनिर्वचनमुच्यते – अद्यते भुज्यते चैव यद्भूतैः अत्ति च भूतानि स्वयम्, तस्मात् भूतैर्भुज्यमानत्वाद्भूतभोक्तृत्वाच्च अन्नं तत् उच्यतेइति-शब्दः प्रथमकोशपरिसमाप्त्यर्थः।
The etymology of the word anna is now being shown. Since food is adyate, eaten, by creatures; and itself atti, eats; bhūtāni, the creatures; tasmāt, therefore – by virtue of being eaten by creatures and of eating the creatures; tat annam ucyate, it is called food. The word iti is to indicate the end of the first sheath.

अन्नमयादिभ्य आनन्दमयान्तेभ्य आत्मभ्यः अभ्यन्तरतमं ब्रह्म विद्यया प्रत्यगात्मत्वेन दिदर्शयिषु शास्त्रम् अविद्याकृतपञ्चकोशापनयनेन अनेकतुषकोद्रववितुषीकरणेनेव तण्डुलान् प्रस्तौति – तस्माद्वा एतस्मादन्नरसमयादित्यादि।
The scripture starts with the text tasmāt vai etasmāt anna-rasamayāt etc., with a view to revealing, through knowledge, Brahman – which is the inmost of all the selves beginning from the physical sheath and ending with the blissful one – as the indwelling Self, by following a process of eliminating the five sheaths just as rice is extracted from the grain called kodrava that has many husks.

तस्माद्वै एतस्मात् यथोक्तात् अन्नरसमयात् पिण्डात् अन्यः व्यतिरिक्तः अन्तरः अभ्यन्तरः आत्मा पिण्डवदेव मिथ्यापरिकल्पित आत्मत्वेन प्राणमयः, प्राणः वायुः, तन्मयः तत्प्रायः।
Tasmāt vai etasmāt anna-rasamayāt, as compared with this body made of the essence of food, as described above; there is anyaḥ, another, separate ātmā, self; antaraḥ, which is inside, (which is) imagined through ignorance to be a self, just as the physical body is; (which latter self is) prāṇamayaḥ: prāṇa is air (vital force), and prāṇamaya means constituted by air, possessed predominantly of air.

तेन प्राणमयेन एषः अन्नरसमय आत्मा पूर्णः वायुनेव दृतिः।
Tena, by that airy (vital) self; pūrṇaḥ, is filled; eṣaḥ, this one – the self constituted by the essence of food, just as a bellow is filled with air.

स वै एष प्राणमय आत्मा पुरुषविध एव पुरुषाकार एव शिरःपक्षादिभिः।
Saḥ vai eṣaḥ, that (self) which is this the vital self; is puruṣa-vidhaḥ eva, also of a human form possessing a head, sides, etc.

किं स्वत एव? नेत्याह – प्रसिद्धं तावदन्नरसमयस्यात्मनः पुरुषविधत्वम्; तस्य अन्नरसमयस्य पुरुषविधतां पुरुषाकारताम् अनु अयं प्राणमयः पुरुषविधः मूषानिषिक्तप्रतिमावत्, न स्वत एव।
Is it so naturally? The text says, no. Now then, the self constituted by the essence of food is well known to have a human shape; anu, in accordance with; puruṣa-vidhatām tasya, the human shape of that self, constituted by the essence of food; ayam, this, (the self) constituted by air; is puruṣa-vidhaḥ, humanly shaped – like an image cast in a crucible, but not naturally.

एवं पूर्वस्य पूर्वस्य पुरुषविधता; तामनु उत्तरोत्तरः पुरुषविधो भवति, पूर्वः पूर्वश्चोत्तरोत्तरेण पूर्णः।
Similarly, the succeeding selves become human in shape in accordance with the human shapes of the preceding ones; and the earlier ones are filled up by the succeeding ones.

कथं पुनः पुरुषविधता अस्येति, उच्यते – तस्य प्राणमयस्य प्राण एव शिरः प्राणमयस्य वायुविकारस्य प्राणः मुखनासिकानिःसरणो वृत्तिविशेषः शिर इति कल्प्यते, वचनात्।
How, again, is constituted its human form? The answer is tasya, of him, of the self constituted by the vital force, which is a transformation of air; prāṇaḥ eva, the special function of exhaling through the mouth and nostrils; is imagined, on the authority of the text, as śiraḥ, head.

सर्वत्र वचनादेव पक्षादिकल्पना। व्यानः व्यानवृत्तिः दक्षिणः पक्षःअपानः उत्तरः पक्षः
The imagination of the sides etc., at every turn, is only on scriptural authority. Vyānaḥ, the function called vyāna (pervading the whole body); is dakṣiṇaḥ pakṣaḥ, the right side. Apānaḥ, apāna (the function of inhaling); is uttaraḥ pakṣaḥ, the left side.

आकाश आत्मा, य आकाशस्थो वृत्तिविशेषः समानाख्यः, स आत्मेव आत्मा प्राणवृत्त्यधिकारात्। मध्यस्थत्वादितराः पर्यन्ता वृत्तीरपेक्ष्य आत्मा; ‘मध्यं ह्येषामङ्गानामात्मा’ इति प्रसिद्धं मध्यस्थस्यात्मत्वम्।
Ākāśaḥ, space, i.e. the function (of air) existing in space as samāna; is ātmā, the self – being comparable of the Self. (Ākāśa means samāna), for it is the context of the functions of the vital force, and it is the self, being in the middle as compared with the other functions that are in the periphery. The one that exists in the middle is recognized as the self in the Vedas, in accordance with the text, ‘The middle (i.e. the trunk) of these limbs is verily their soul’.

पृथिवी पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा। पृथिवीति पृथिवीदेवता आध्यात्मिकस्य प्राणस्य धारयित्री स्थितिहेतुत्वात्। ‘सैषा पुरुषस्यापानमवष्टभ्य’ (PrasU.3.8) इति हि श्रुत्यन्तरम्। अन्यथा उदानवृत्त्या ऊर्ध्वगमनं गुरुत्वात्पतनं वा स्याच्छरीरस्य।
Pṛthivī puccham pratiṣṭhā: pṛthivī means the deity of the earth; and this deity supports the physical vital force, since this deity is the cause of its stability according to another Veda text, ‘That deity favours by attracting the apāna in a man’ (PrasU.3.8). Else the body would ascend upwards because of the action of the vital function called udāna, or there would be falling down because of its weight.

तस्मात्पृथिवी देवता पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा प्राणमयस्य आत्मनः। तत् तस्मिन्नेवार्थे प्राणमयात्मविषये एष श्लोको भवति
Therefore the deity of the earth is the stabilizing tail of the vital self. Tat, pertaining to that very idea – with regard to the vital self; here eṣaḥ ślokaḥ bhavati, is this verse:

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


प्राणं देवा अनु प्राणन्ति। अग्न्यादयः देवाः प्राणं वाय्वात्मानं प्राणनशक्तिमन्तम् अनु तदात्मभूताः सन्तः प्राणन्ति प्राणनकर्म कुर्वन्ति, प्राणनक्रियया क्रियावन्तो भवन्ति।
Devāḥ, the gods – Fire etc.; prāṇanti, perform the act of breathing, become active through the functioning of the vital force; anu prāṇam, after the self that is constituted by air; that is to say, the gods perform the vital functions by becoming identified with that which possesses the power of sustaining life.

अध्यात्माधिकारात् देवाः इन्द्रियाणि प्राणमनु प्राणन्ति। मुख्यप्राणमनु चेष्टन्त इति वा।
Or, because this is the context of the physical body, devāḥ means the sense-organs; (they) prāṇam anu prāṇanti, become active by following the function of breathing that subsists in the mouth.

तथा मनुष्याः पशवश्च ये, ते प्राणनकर्मणैव चेष्टावन्तो भवन्ति।
Similarly, ye manuṣyāḥ paśavaḥ ca, those that are human beings and animals, they become active through the function of breathing.

अतश्च नान्नमयेनैव परिच्छिन्नात्मना आत्मवन्तः प्राणिनः। किं तर्हि? तदन्तर्गतप्राणमयेनापि साधारणेनैव सर्वपिण्डव्यापिना आत्मवन्तो मनुष्यादयः।
Hence, also, it is not simply by possessing the limited self in the form of the body built up by food that creatures become dowered with selves. What then? Human beings and others are endowed with their selves by virtue of possessing a vital body within each physical body, which former is common to, and pervades, each physical body as a whole.

एवं मनोमयादिभिः पूर्वपूर्वव्यापिभिः उत्तरोत्तरैः सूक्ष्मैः आनन्दमयान्तैराकाशादिभूतारब्धैरविद्याकृतैः आत्मवन्तः सर्वे प्राणिनः;
Similarly, all creatures are possessed of their selves by virtue of being provided with the bodies beginning with the mental and ending with the blissful, which successively pervade the preceding ones and which are made up of the elements counting from ākāśa that are the creations of ignorance.

तथा, स्वाभाविकेनाप्याकाशादिकारणेन नित्येनाविकृतेन सर्वगतेन सत्यज्ञानानन्तलक्षणेन पञ्चकोशातिगेन सर्वात्मना आत्मवन्तः; स हि परमार्थत आत्मा सर्वेषामित्येतदप्यर्थादुक्तं भवति।
So also are they blessed with their selves by the Self that is common to all, self-existent, the source of space etc., everlasting, unchanging, all-pervading, defined as ‘truth, knowledge, and infinite’, and beyond the five sheaths. And by implication it is also said that this is the Self of all in the real sense.

प्राणं देवा अनु प्राणन्तीत्याद्युक्तम्; तत्कस्मादित्याह – प्राणः हि यस्मात् भूतानां प्राणिनाम् आयुः जीवनम्, ‘यावद्ध्यस्मिञ्शरीरे प्राणो वसति तावदेवायुः’ (कौ. उ. ३-२) इति श्रुत्यन्तरात्।
It has been said that the senses act by following the activity of the vital force. How is that so? This is being answered: Hi, since, according to another Veda text, ‘Life lasts so long as the vital force resides in the body’ (Kau. III. 2); prāṇaḥ, the vital force; is āyuḥ, the life; bhūtānām, of creatures.

तस्मात् सर्वायुषम्, सर्वेषामायुः सर्वायुः, सर्वायुरेव सर्वायुषम् इति उच्यते; प्राणापगमे मरणप्रसिद्धेः। प्रसिद्धं हि लोके सर्वायुष्ट्वं प्राणस्य।
Tasmāt, therefore, it (the vital force) is ucyate, called; sarva-āyuṣam. Sarva-āyuḥ means the life of all; sarva-āyuḥ is the same as sarva-āyuṣam, the life of all. Since death is a known consequence of the departure of the vital force, the latter is universally recognized as the life of all.

अतः अस्माद्बाह्यादसाधारणादन्नमयादात्मनोऽपक्रम्य अन्तः साधारणं प्राणमयम् आत्मानं ब्रह्म उपासते ये ‘अहमस्मि प्राणः सर्व-भूतानाम् आत्मा आयुः, जीवनहेतुत्वात्’ इति, ते सर्वम् एव आयुः अस्मिंल्लोके यन्ति; नापमृत्युना म्रियन्ते प्राक्प्राप्तादायुष इत्यर्थः।
Hence ye te those who, after detaching themselves from this external, personal, physical self, brahma upāsate, meditate on the inner, common vital self as Brahman with the idea, ‘I am prāṇaḥ, the vital force that is the self bhūtānām, of all beings and their āyuḥ, life, being the source of life’, sarvam āyuḥ eva yanti, get verily the full span of life in this world, i.e. they do not meet with any accidental death before the ordained span of life.

शतं वर्षाणीति तु युक्तम्, ‘सर्वमायुरेति’ (ChanU.2.11.2, 4.11.2) इति श्रुतिप्रसिद्धेः।
The word sarva-āyuḥ, (full span of life), should, however, properly mean one hundred years, in accordance with the well-recognized fact in the Veda text, ‘He gets a full span of life’ (ChanU.2.11.2 – 22.2, 4.11.2 – 13.2).

किं कारणम्? – प्राणो हि भूतानाम् आयुः तस्मात् सर्वायुषम् उच्यत इति
What is the reason (of attaining the full life)? Prāṇaḥ hi bhūtānām āyuḥ tasmāt sarva-āyuṣam ucyate (see ante).

यो यद्गुणकं ब्रह्मोपास्ते, स तद्गुणभाग्भवतीति विद्याफलप्राप्तेर्हेत्वर्थं पुनर्वचनम् – प्राणो हीत्यादि।
The repetition of the expression prāṇaḥ hi etc., is to indicate the logic of the attainment of the fruit of meditation, to wit: Anyone who worships Brahman as possessed of certain qualities, himself shares in them.

तस्य पूर्वस्य अन्नमयस्य एष एव शरीरे अन्नमये भवः शारीरः आत्मा। कः? य एष प्राणमयः।
Tasya pūrvasya, of the physical body described above; eṣaḥ eva, this verily is; the śārīraḥ ātmā, the self existing in the body made of food. Which is it? Yaḥ eṣaḥ that which is this one – constituted by the vital force.

तस्माद् वा एतस्माद् इत्याद्युक्तार्थमन्यत्। अन्योऽन्तर आत्मा मनोमयः
The rest beginning with tasmāt vai etasmāt is to be construed as before. Anyaḥ antaraḥ ātmā, there is another inner self; manomayaḥ, constituted by mind.

मन इति सङ्कल्पविकल्पात्मकमन्तःकरणम्, तन्मयो मनोमयः; सोऽयं प्राणमयस्याभ्यन्तर आत्मा।
Manaḥ means the internal organ comprising volition etc. That which is constituted by mind is manomaya, just as in the case of annamaya. This that is such is the inner self of the vital body.

तस्य यजुरेव शिरः। यजुरिति अनियताक्षरपादावसानो मन्त्रविशेषः; तज्जातीयवचनो यजुःशब्दः; तस्य शिरस्त्वम्, प्राधान्यात्।
Tasya, of that (mental body); yajuḥ eva śiraḥ, the Yajur-mantras are the head. Yajuḥ means a kind of mantra in which the number of letters and feet, and length (of lanes) are not restricted; the word yajuḥ denotes (prose) sentences of that class.

प्राधान्यं च यागादौ संनिपत्योपकारकत्वात् यजुषा हि हविर्दीयते स्वाहाकारादिना।
It is the head because of its preeminence, and the preeminence is owing to its subserving a sacrifice directly, for an oblation is offered with a Yajur-mantra uttered along with a svāha etc.

वाचनिकी वा शिरआदिकल्पना सर्वत्र।
Or the imagination of the head etc., everywhere, is only on the authority of the text.

मनसो हि स्थानप्रयत्ननादस्वरवर्णपदवाक्यविषया तत्संकल्पात्मिका तद्भाविता वृत्तिः श्रोत्रकरणद्वारा यजुःसंकेतेन विशिष्टा यजुरित्युच्यते।
(Yajuḥ is a constituent of the mental sheath) since yajuḥ is that state of the mind which is related to organs (of utterance), effort (involved in utterance), sound (produced thereby), intonation, letters, words, and sentences; which consists of a volition with regard to these factors; which is preoccupied with their thoughts; which has the organs of hearing etc. for its communication; and which has the characteristics of the Yajur-mantras.

एवम् ऋक्; एवं साम च।
Thus are (to be understood) the Ṛg-mantras, and thus also the Sāma-mantras.

एवं च मनोवृत्तित्वे मन्त्राणाम्, वृत्तिरेव आवर्त्यत इति मानसो जप उपपद्यते।
In this way, when the mantras are considered as mental states, their mental repetition (japa) becomes possible, since that implies that those states alone are continued in the mind.

अन्यथा अविषयत्वान्मन्त्रो नावर्तयितुं शक्यः घटादिवत् इति मानसो जपो नोपपद्यते।
Else, mental repetition of a mantra would not be possible, since the mantra would then be outside the mind just as much as pot etc., are.
[•The words in the mantra would be outside the mind, and mind would have no independence with regard to them.•]

मन्त्रावृत्तिश्चोद्यते बहुशः कर्मसु।
But, as a matter of fact, the repetition of mantras has to be undertaken (since it) is enjoined variously in connection with rites.

अक्षरविषयस्मृत्यावृत्त्या मन्त्रावृत्तिः स्यात् इति चेत्,
Objection: The (mental) repetition of a mantra can be accomplished by the repetition of the memory of letters (constituting it).

न; मुख्यार्थासंभवात्। ‘त्रिः प्रथमामन्वाह त्रिरुत्तमाम्’ इति ऋगावृत्तिः श्रूयते।
Answer: No, since (on that assumption) there is no possibility of repetition in the primary sense. The repetition of Ṛg-mantra is enjoined in the text, ‘The first Ṛg-mantra is to be repeated thrice and the last Ṛg-mantra is to be repeated thrice.’

तत्र ऋचः अविषयत्वे तद्विषयस्मृत्यावृत्त्या मन्त्रावृत्तौ च क्रियमाणायाम् ‘त्रिः प्रथमामन्वाह’ इति ऋगावृत्तिर्मुख्योऽर्थश्चोदितः परित्यक्तः स्यात्।
That being so, if the Ṛg-mantras themselves be not made the objects of repetition, and if the repetition of their memory be undertaken, the repetition of the Ṛg-mantra, in the primary sense, which is enjoined in ‘the first Ṛg-mantra is to be repeated thrice’, will be discarded.

तस्मान्मनोवृत्त्युपाधिपरिच्छिन्नं मनोवृत्तिनिष्ठमात्मचैतन्यमनादिनिधनं यजुःशब्दवाच्यम् आत्मविज्ञानं मन्त्रा इति। एवं च नित्यत्वोपपत्तिर्वेदानाम्।
Hence the (Yajur-) mantras are (in the last analysis) nothing but the knowledge of the Self, which is identical with the beginningless and endless Consciousness that is the Self lodged in and conditioned by the mental functions referred to as Yajus that act as Its limiting adjuncts. Thus is the eternality of the Vedas justifiable.

अन्यथाविषयत्वे रूपादिवदनित्यत्वं च स्यात्; नैतद्युक्तम्।
Else, if they are objects like colour etc., they will be impermanent. This is not correct.

‘सर्वे वेदा यत्रैकं भवन्ति स मानसीन आत्मा’ इति च श्रुतिः नित्यात्मनैकत्वं ब्रुवन्ती ऋगादीनां नित्यत्वे समञ्जसा स्यात्।
And the Veda text, ‘where all the Vedas get united is the Self in the mind’ (Cit.Xl.l, Tai.A. III.ii.l),
[•Where the Self exists as the witness of all mental functions.•]
which declares the identity of the Ṛg-mantras etc., with the eternal Self, can be reconciled only if the mantras are eternal.

‘ऋचोऽक्षरे परमे व्योमन्यस्मिन्देवा अधि विश्वे निषेदुः’ (SvetU.4.8) इति च मन्त्रवर्णः।
And there is also the mantra text, ‘The Ṛg-mantras exist in that undecaying and supreme space (Brahman) where all the gods reside’ (SvetU.4.8).

आदेशः अत्र ब्राह्मणम्, आदेष्टव्यविशेषानादिशतीति। अथर्वणाङ्गिरसा च दृष्टा मन्त्रा ब्राह्मणं च शान्तिकपौष्टिकादिप्रतिष्ठाहेतुकर्मप्रधानत्वात् पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा
Ādeśaḥ here means the brāhmaṇa portion of the Vedas, since (in consonance with the etymological meaning of ādeśa, command) the brāhmaṇa portion inculcates all that has to be enjoined. Atharva-āṅgirasaḥ, the mantra and the brāhmaṇa portions seen by Atharva-aṅgiras; are puccham pratiṣṭhā, the stabilizing tail, since they are chiefly concerned with rites performed for acquiring peace, prosperity, etc., which bring about stability.

तदप्येष श्लोको भवति मनोमयात्मप्रकाशकः पूर्ववत्॥

Tad api eṣaḥ ślokaḥ bhavati, pertaining to this is a verse, just as before, which reveals the self that is constituted by the mind:

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


यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते अप्राप्य मनसा सह इत्यादि।
Yataḥ vācaḥ nivartante etc., (For commentary see TaitU.2.9.1).

तस्य पूर्वस्य प्राणमयस्य एष एव आत्मा शारीरः शरीरे प्राणमये भवः शरीरः। कः? एष मनोमयः।
Tasya pūrvasya, of that preceding one – of the one constituted by the vital force; eṣaḥ eva ātmā, this one is verily the self; śārīraḥ, existing in the body – the vital body. Which? Yaḥ eṣaḥ manomayaḥ, that which is constituted by mind.

तस्माद्वा एतस्माद् इति पूर्ववत्। अन्योऽन्तर आत्मा विज्ञानमयः मनोमयस्याभ्यन्तरो विज्ञानमयः।
Tasmāt vai etasmāt, as compared with this one’ etc. – is to be explained as before–; anyaḥ antaraḥ ātmā, there is another self that is internal; Vijñānamayaḥ, the intelligence-self, which exists within the mental-self.

मनोमयो वेदात्मा उक्तः। वेदार्थविषया बुद्धिर्निश्चयात्मिका विज्ञानम्, तच्चाध्यवसायलक्षणमन्तःकरणस्य धर्मः,
It has been mentioned that the mental-self consists of the Vedas. The wisdom about the contents of the Vedas, amounting to certitude, is vijñāna; and that (vijñāna), again, in the form of certitude is a characteristic of the internal organ.

तन्मयः निश्चयविज्ञानैः प्रमाणस्वरूपैर्निर्वर्तितः आत्मा विज्ञानमयः प्रमाणविज्ञानपूर्वको हि यज्ञादिः तायते। यज्ञादिहेतुत्वं च वक्ष्यति श्लोकेन।
Vijñānamayaḥ is the self consisting of such vijñāna, and it is constituted by well-ascertained knowledge that is authoritative by nature. For sacrifice etc. are undertaken where there exists knowledge arising from a valid source. And the (next) verse will declare that it is the source of sacrifices.

निश्चयविज्ञानवतो हि कर्तव्येष्वर्थेषु पूर्वं श्रद्धा उपपद्यते। सा सर्वकर्तव्यानां प्राथम्यात् शिर इव शिरः
In one who is possessed of well-ascertained knowledge, there arises first śraddhā, faith, with regard to the things to be performed. Since that faith precedes all duties, it is the śiraḥ, head, i.e. comparable to a head.

ऋतसत्ये यथाव्याख्याते एव।
Ṛta and satya, righteousness and truth, are as they have been explained before (TaitU.1.9.1).

योगः युक्तिः समाधानम् आत्मैव आत्मा। आत्मवतो हि युक्तस्य समाधानवतः अङ्गानीव श्रद्धादीनि यथार्थप्रतिपत्तिक्षमाणि भवन्ति। तस्मात्समाधानं योग आत्मा विज्ञानमयस्य।
Yogaḥ is conjunction, concentration. It is the ātmā, self (the middle part), as it were. Faith etc., like the limbs of a body, become fit for the acquisition of valid knowledge in a man who is possessed of a self by virtue of his concentration. Therefore, yogaḥ, concentration, is the self (i.e. the trunk) of the body constituted by knowledge.

महः पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा। मह इति महत्तत्त्वं प्रथमजम्, ‘महद्यक्षं प्रथमजं वेद’ (BrhU.5.4.1) इति श्रुत्यन्तरात्, पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा कारणत्वात्।
Mahaḥ puccham pratiṣṭhā: Mahaḥ means the principle called Mahat – the first born, in accordance with another Veda text, ‘(He who knows) this Mahat (great), adorable, first-born being (as the Satya-Brahman)’ (BrhUEng.5.4.1).
[•The Cosmic Person comprising all gross and subtle things.•]
It is puccham pratiṣṭhā, the supporting tail, since it is the cause (of the intelligence-self).

कारणं हि कार्याणां प्रतिष्ठा, यथा वृक्षवीरुधां पृथिवी। सर्वविज्ञानानां च महत्तत्त्वं कारणम्। तेन तद्विज्ञानमयस्यात्मनः प्रतिष्ठा।
For the cause is the support of the effects, as for instance, the earth is of trees and creepers. The principle called Mahat is the cause of all intellectual cognitions. Thereby it becomes the support of the cognitive self (consisting of intelligence).

तदप्येष श्लोको भवति पूर्ववत्। यथा अन्नमयादीनां ब्राह्मणोक्तानां प्रकाशकाः श्लोकाः, एवं विज्ञानमयस्यापि॥

Tad api eṣaḥ ślokaḥ bhavati, pertaining to that there occurs this verse, just as before. Just as there are verses expressive of the physical self etc., that are mentioned in the brāhmaṇa portion, so also is there a verse with regard to the cognitive one.

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


विज्ञानं यज्ञं तनुते, विज्ञानवान्हि यज्ञं तनोति श्रद्धापूर्वकम्; अतो विज्ञानस्य कर्तृत्वं तनुत इति। कर्माणि च तनुते
Vijñānam yajñam tanute, knowledge actualizes a sacrifice; for a man of knowledge executes it with faith etc. Hence knowledge is presented as the doer in (the expression) ‘Knowledge actualizes the sacrifice’. Ca, and; karmāṇi tanute, it executes the duties (as well).

यस्माद्विज्ञानकर्तृकं सर्वम्, तस्माद्युक्तं विज्ञानमय आत्मा ब्रह्मेति।
Since everything is accomplished by knowledge, it is reasonable to say that the cognitive self is Brahman.

किञ्च, विज्ञानं ब्रह्म सर्वे देवाः इन्द्रादयः ज्येष्ठम्, प्रथमजत्वात्; सर्ववृत्तीनां वा तत्पूर्वकत्वात्प्रथमजं विज्ञानं ब्रह्म उपासते ध्यायन्ति, तस्मिन्विज्ञानमये ब्रह्मण्यभिमानं कृत्वा उपासत इत्यर्थः।
Moreover, sarve devāḥ, all the gods, Indra and others; upāsate, meditate on; vijñānam brahma, Brahman as conditioned by cognition; (which is) jyeṣṭham, the first born – since it was born before all or because all actions presuppose it. That is to say, they meditate on that knowledge-Brahman, by identifying themselves with it.

तस्मात्ते महतो ब्रह्मण उपासनात् ज्ञानैश्वर्यवन्तो भवन्ति।
Hence, through the worship of the Mahat-Brahman (Hiraṇya-garbha), they become possessed of knowledge and glory.

तच्च विज्ञानं ब्रह्म चेत् यदि वेद विजानाति;
Cet, if; veda, one knows; that vijñānam brahma, Brahman as conditioned by cognition;

न केवलं वेदैव, तस्मात् ब्रह्मणः चेत् न प्रमाद्यति;
And not only does one know, but also, cet, if; na pramādyati tasmāt, one does not err about that Brahman – does not deviate from that Brahman

बाह्येष्वनात्मस्वात्मा भावितः; तस्मात्प्राप्तं विज्ञानमये ब्रह्मण्यात्मभावनायाः प्रमदनम्; तन्निवृत्त्यर्थमुच्यते – तस्माच्चेन्न प्रमाद्यतीति। अन्नमयादिष्वात्मभावं हित्वा केवले विज्ञानमये ब्रह्मण्यात्मत्वं भावयन्नास्ते चेदित्यर्थः।
Since one is prone to thinking the external non-Selves as the Self, there arises the possibility of swerving from the thought of the knowledge-Brahman as identified with one’s Self; in order to bar out that possibility, the text says, ‘if one does not err about that Brahman’, that is to say, if one has eschewed all ideas of identity of the physical selves etc. with his own Self and goes on thinking of the knowledge-Brahman only as his Self –.

ततः किं स्यादिति, उच्यते – शरीरे पाप्मनो हित्वा;
What will happen thereby? The answer is: śarīre pāpmanaḥ hitvā, abandoning all sins in the body –.

शरीराभिमाननिमित्ता हि सर्वे पाप्मानः; तेषां च विज्ञानमये ब्रह्मण्यात्माभिमानात् निमित्तापाये हानमुपपद्यते; छत्रापाय इव च्छायायाः।
All sins are verily caused by the identification of oneself with the body. And on the analogy of the removal of the shade, on the removal of the umbrella, their eradication is possible when their cause is removed as a result of the identification of oneself with the knowledge-Brahman.

तस्मात् शरीराभिमाननिमित्तान्सर्वान् पाप्मनः शरीरप्रभवान् शरीरे एव हित्वा विज्ञानमयब्रह्मस्वरूपापन्नः तत्स्थान् सर्वान् कामान् विज्ञानमयेनैवात्मना समश्नुते सम्यग्भुङ्क्ते इत्यर्थः।
Therefore, having abandoned in the body itself, all the sins which arise from the body, which are caused by the identification of oneself with the body, and becoming identified with the knowledge-Brahman (i.e. Hiraṇya-garbha), one samaśnute, fully attains, i.e. fully enjoys, through the cognitive self itself; sarvān kāmān, all the desirable things that there are in the knowledge-Brahman.

तस्य पूर्वस्य मनोमयस्य आत्मा एष एव शरीरे मनोमये भवः शारीरः। कः? य एष विज्ञानमयः।
Tasya pūrvasya, of that preceding one, of the mental self; yaḥ eva ātmā, this is verily the self, that is lodged in the mental-śarīra, body, and is hence the śārīraḥ, embodied. Which? Yaḥ eṣaḥ, that which is this; vijñānamayaḥ, the cognitive one.

तस्माद्वा एतस्माद् इत्युक्तार्थम्। आनन्दमय इति कार्यात्मप्रतीतिः, अधिकारात् मयट्शब्दाच्च।
Tasmāt vai etasmāt etc. is as already explained. From the context and from the use of the suffix, mayat (made of), it is to be understood that a conditioned self is implied by the word ānandamayaḥ (made of bliss).

अन्नादिमया हि कार्यात्मानो भौतिका इहाधिकृताः। तदधिकारपतितश्चायमानन्दमयः।
Indeed, the conditioned selves – made of food etc. – which are material, are dealt with here. And this self made of bliss also is included in that context.

मयट् चात्र विकारार्थे दृष्टः, यथा अन्नमय इत्यत्र। तस्मात्कार्यात्मा आनन्दमयः प्रत्येतव्यः।
Besides, the suffix mayat is used here in the sense of transmutation (vikāra) (and not abundance, prācuryam, prāyas) as in the case of annamaya (annasya vikāraḥ). Hence the ānandamaya is to be understood as a conditioned self.

संक्रमणाच्च। ‘आनन्दमयमात्मानमुपसंक्रामति’ इति वक्ष्यति। कार्यात्मनां च संक्रमणमन्नात्मनां दृष्टम्। संक्रमणकर्मत्वेन च आनन्दमय आत्मा श्रूयते, यथा ‘अन्नमयमात्मानमुपसंक्रामति’ इति।
This also follows from the fact of saṅkramaṇa (attaining). The text will say, ‘He attains the self made of bliss’ (TaitU.2.8.5). And the conditioned selves that are not the Self are seen to be attained. Moreover, the self made of bliss is mentioned in the text as the object of the act of attaining, just as it is in the text, ‘annamayam ātmānam upasaṅkrāmati’, he attains the self made of food (TaitU.2.8.5).

न च आत्मन एवोपसंक्रमणम्, अधिकारविरोधात्। असंभवाच्च। न ह्यात्मनैव आत्मन उपसंक्रमणं संभवति, स्वात्मनि भेदाभावात्; आत्मभूतं च ब्रह्म संक्रमितुः।
Besides, the (unconditioned) Self Itself is not attainable, since such an attainment is repugnant to the trend of the passage and it is impossible. For the (unconditioned) Self cannot be attained by the Self Itself, inasmuch as there is no division within the Self, and Brahman (the goal) is the Self of the attainer.

शिरआदिकल्पनानुपपत्तेश्च। न हि यथोक्तलक्षणे आकाशादिकारणे अकार्यपतिते शिरआद्यवयवरूपकल्पना उपपद्यते।
Moreover, (on the supposition that the unconditioned Self is spoken of), the fancying of head etc., becomes illogical. For such imagination of limbs, head, etc., is not possible in that (Self) which has the characteristics mentioned earlier, which is the cause of space etc., and which is not included in the category of effects.

‘अदृश्येऽनात्म्येऽनिरुक्तेऽनिलयने’ (TaitU.2.7.1) ‘अस्थूलमनणु’ (BrhU.3.8.8) ‘नेति नेत्यात्मा’ (BrhU.3.9.26) इत्यादिविशेषापोहश्रुतिभ्यश्च।
And this is borne out by such Veda texts, denying distinctive attributes in the Self, as the following: ‘(Whenever an aspirant gets fearlessly established) in this unperceivable, bodiless, inexpressible, and unsupporting (Brahman)’ (TaitU.2.7.1), ‘It is neither gross nor minute’ (BrhUEng.3.8.8), ‘The Self is that which has been described as “not this”, “not this”’ (BrhUEng.3.9.26).

मन्त्रोदाहरणानुपपत्तेश्च। न हि, प्रियशिरआद्यवयवविशिष्टे प्रत्यक्षतोऽनुभूयमाने आनन्दमये आत्मनि ब्रह्मणि नास्ति ब्रह्मेत्याशङ्काभावात् ‘असन्नेव स भवति असद्ब्रह्मेति वेद चेत्’ (TaitU.2.6.1) इति मन्त्रोदाहरणमुपपद्यते।
This also follows from the illogicality (otherwise) of quoting the (succeeding) mantra; surely, the quotation of the mantra, ‘If anyone knows Brahman as non-existing, he himself becomes non-existent’ (TaitU.2.6.1), cannot be justified, since the doubt that ‘Brahman does not exist’ cannot arise with regard to Brahman which is directly perceived as the self made of bliss and possessed of such limbs as joy for its head and so on.

‘ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा’ इत्यपि चानुपपन्नं पृथग्ब्रह्मणः प्रतिष्ठात्वेन ग्रहणम्। तस्मात्कार्यपतित एवानन्दमयः, न पर एवात्मा।
Besides, it is unjustifiable to refer separately to Brahman as the stabilizing tail in, ‘Brahman is the stabilizing tail’. So the ānandamaya (made of bliss, or blissful) (ātmā, self) belongs to the category of effects; it is not the supreme Self.

आनन्द इति विद्याकर्मणोः फलम्, तद्विकार आनन्दमयः।
Ānanda (bliss) is an effect of meditation and rites, and ānandamaya is constituted by that bliss.

स च विज्ञानमयादान्तरः, यज्ञादिहेतोर्विज्ञानमयादस्यान्तरत्वश्रुतेः। ज्ञानकर्मणोर्हि फलं भोक्त्रर्थत्वादान्तरतमं स्यात्; आन्तरतमश्च आनन्दमय आत्मा पूर्वेभ्यः।
And this self is more internal than the cognitive self, since it has been shown by the Upaniṣad to be indwelling the cognitive self which is the cause of sacrifices etc. Inasmuch as the fruit of meditation and rites is meant for the enjoyer,
[•Since enjoyment follows action.•]
it must be the inmost of all; and the blissful self is the inmost as compared with the earlier ones.

विद्याकर्मणोः प्रियाद्यर्थत्वाच्च। प्रियादिप्रयुक्ते हि विद्याकर्मणी;
Further, this follows from the fact that meditation and rites are meant for the acquisition of joy etc.; indeed, meditation and rites are prompted by (the desire for) joy etc.

तस्मात्प्रियादीनां फलरूपाणामात्मसंनिकर्षात् विज्ञानमयादस्याभ्यन्तरत्वमुपपद्यते; प्रियादिवासनानिर्वर्तितो ह्यात्मा आनन्दमयो विज्ञानमयाश्रितः स्वप्ने उपलभ्यते।
Thus since joy etc., which are the fruits (of rites and meditation), are nearer to the Self, it is logical that they should be within the cognitive self; for the blissful self, revived by the impression of joy etc., is perceived in dream to be dependent on the cognitive self.
[•“The self, possessed of joy etc., is not the primary self, since it is perceived by the witnessing Self in dream”—A.G.•]

तस्य आनन्दमयस्यात्मनः इष्टपुत्रादिदर्शनजं प्रियं शिर इव शिरः, प्राधान्यात्। मोद इति प्रियलाभनिमित्तो हर्षः। स एव च प्रकृष्टो हर्षः प्रमोदः
Tasya, of him, of the self made of bliss; the priyam, joy – arising from seeing such beloved objects as a son; is the śiraḥ, head – comparable to a head, because of its preeminence. Modaḥ, enjoyment, means the happiness that follows the acquisition of an object of desire. When that enjoyment reaches its acme it is pramodaḥ, exhilaration.

आनन्द इति सुखसामान्यम् आत्मा प्रियादीनां सुखावयवानाम्, तेष्वनुस्यूतत्वात्।
Ānandaḥ, Bliss – pleasure in general, is ātmā, the soul (trunk) of the different limbs, (i.e. expressions) of happiness in the form of joy etc., for this ānanda, (i.e. common Bliss) permeates them all.

आनन्द इति परं ब्रह्म; तद्धि शुभकर्मणा प्रत्युपस्थाप्यमाने पुत्रमित्रादिविषयविशेषोपाधौ अन्तःकरणवृत्तिविशेषे तमसा अप्रच्छाद्यमाने प्रसन्ने अभिव्यज्यते। तद्विषयसुखमिति प्रसिद्धं लोके।
Ānanda (Bliss) is supreme Brahman; for it is Brahman which manifests Itself in the various mental modifications, when such limiting adjuncts as the particular objects like a son, a friend, etc. are presented by the (past) good deeds and the mind, freed from tamas (gloom, darkness, etc.), becomes placid. And this is well known in the world as objective happiness.

तद्वृत्तिविशेषप्रत्युपस्थापकस्य कर्मणोऽनवस्थितत्वात् सुखस्य क्षणिकत्वम्। तद्यदन्तःकरणं तपसा तमोघ्नेन विद्यया ब्रह्मचर्येण श्रद्धया च निर्मलत्वमापद्यते यावत्, तावत् विविक्ते प्रसन्ने अन्तःकरणे आनन्दविशेष उत्कृष्यते विपुलीभवति।
This happiness is momentary, since the result of past deeds that brings about those particular modifications of the mind is unstable. That being so, in proportion as that mind becomes purified through austerities that dispel tamas (indolence), and also through meditation, continence, and faith, so much do particular joys attain excellence and gain in volume in that calm and free mind.

वक्ष्यति च – ‘रसो वै सः, रसं ह्येवायं लब्ध्वानन्दी भवति, एष ह्येवानन्दयाति’ (TaitU.2.7.1) ‘एतस्यैवानन्दस्यान्यानि भूतानि मात्रामुपजीवन्ति’ (BrhU.4.3.32) इति श्रुत्यन्तरात्। एवं च कामोपशमोत्कर्षापेक्षया शतगुणोत्तरोत्तरोत्कर्षः आनन्दस्य वक्ष्यते।
And this Upaniṣad will say, ‘That is verily the source of joy; for one becomes happy by coming in contact with that source of joy. This one, indeed, enlivens people’ (TaitU.2.7.1). There is also this other Veda text to the point, ‘On a particle of this very Bliss other beings live’ (BrhUEng.4.3.32). Thus, too, it will be said that bliss increases a hundredfold in every successive stage, in proportion to the perfection of detachment from desires (TaitU.2.8.1).
[•If the increase of bliss were dependent on things alone, the Upaniṣad would not speak of bliss with reference to a man of detachment as it does in fact in TaitU.2.5.1. In reality, bliss becomes higher in proportion as the heart becomes purer, calm, and more freed from objects, whereby it becomes abler to reflect the Bliss that is Brahman.•]

एवं च उत्कृष्यमाणस्य आनन्दमयस्यात्मनः परमार्थब्रह्मविज्ञानापेक्षया ब्रह्म परमेव यत्प्रकृतं सत्यज्ञानानन्तलक्षणम्, यस्य च प्रतिपत्त्यर्थं पञ्च अन्नादिमयाः कोशा उपन्यस्ताः, यच्च तेभ्य आभ्यन्तरम्, येन च ते सर्वे आत्मवन्तः, तत् ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा
Thus, speaking from the standpoint of the knowledge of the Supreme Brahman, Brahman is certainly the highest as compared with the blissful self that attains excellence gradually. The Brahman under discussion – which is defined as ‘truth, knowledge, infinite’ (TaitU.2.1.1), for whose realization have been introduced the five sheaths, commencing with the one made of food, which is the inmost of them all, and by which they become endowed with their selves (being) – that brahma, Brahman; is puccham pratiṣṭhā, the tail that stabilizes.

तदेव च सर्वस्याविद्यापरिकल्पितस्य द्वैतस्य अवसानभूतम् अद्वैतं ब्रह्म प्रतिष्ठा, आनन्दमयस्य एकत्वावसानत्वात्। अस्ति तदेकमविद्याकल्पितस्य द्वैतस्यावसानभूतमद्वैतं ब्रह्म प्रतिष्ठा पुच्छम्।
Again, that very non-dual Brahman, which is the farthest limit of all negation of duality superimposed by ignorance, is the support (of the blissful self), for the blissful self culminates in unity. (It follows, therefore, that) there does exist that one, non-dual Brahman, as the farthest limit of the negation of duality called up by ignorance, and this Brahman supports (the duality) like a tail.

तद् एतस्मिन्न् अपि अर्थे एष श्लोको भवति

Tad api eṣaḥ ślokaḥ bhavati, illustrative of this fact, too, here is a verse:

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


असन्नेव असत्सम एव, यथा असन् अपुरुषार्थसंबन्धी, एवं सः भवति अपुरुषार्थसंबन्धी।
Saḥ he; bhavati, becomes; a-san eva, non-existing indeed – like something non-existent; just as a nonentity has no relation with any human objective, similarly, he remains dissociated from the human objective (viz liberation).

कोऽसौ? यः असत् अविद्यमानं ब्रह्म इति वेद विजानाति चेत् यदि।
Who is that? He who, cet, perchance; veda, knows; brahma, Brahman; a-sat iti, as non-existing.

तद्विपर्ययेण यत्सर्वविकल्पास्पदं सर्वप्रवृत्तिबीजं सर्वविशेषप्रत्यस्तमितमपि, अस्ति तत् ब्रह्म इति वेद चेत्
As opposed to that, cet veda, if he knows; That – that Brahman, which is the basis of all diversification and the seed of all activity, though in Itself It is devoid of all distinctions; asti iti, does exist, (then the knowers of Brahman consider him as existing).

कुतः पुनराशङ्का तन्नास्तित्वे? व्यवहारातीतत्वं ब्रह्मण इति ब्रूमः।
Why, again, should there be any apprehension of Its non-existence? We say that (this is so, because) Brahman is beyond all empirical relationships.

व्यवहारविषये हि वाचारंभणमात्रे अस्तित्वभावितबुद्धिः तद्विपरीते व्यवहारातीते नास्तित्वमपि प्रतिपद्यते।
The intellect that is prone to think of existence with regard to only the empirical objects having speech alone as their substance, may assume non-existence with regard to anything that is opposed to this and is transcendental.

यथा ‘घटादिर्व्यवहारविषयतयोपपन्नः सन्, तद्विपरीतः असन्’ इति प्रसिद्धम्, एवं तत्सामान्यादिहापि स्याद्ब्रह्मणो नास्तित्वं प्रत्याशङ्का।
For instance, it is well-known that a pot, comprehended as a thing that man can deal with, is true, while anything of an opposite nature is false. Thus, by a parity of reasoning, there may arise here also an apprehension of the non-existence of Brahman.

तस्मादुच्यते – अस्ति ब्रह्मेति चेद्वेदेति। किं पुनः स्यात्तदस्तीति विजानतः? तदाह – सन्तं विद्यमानं ब्रह्मस्वरूपेण परमार्थसदात्मापन्नम् एनम् एवंविदं विदुः ब्रह्मविदः। ततः तस्मात् अस्तित्ववेदनात् सः अन्येषां ब्रह्मवद्विज्ञेयो भवतीत्यर्थः।
Therefore it is said, ‘If anyone knows that Brahman does exist’. What again, will happen to one who knows Brahman as existing? That is being answered: Tataḥ, because of that realization of existence; the knowers of Brahman viduḥ, know; enam, this one – who has this realization; as santam, existing identified with the Self that is absolutely real–, by virtue of his having become one with the Brahman that exists. The idea is that he becomes worthy to he known by others, just as Brahman is.

अथवा यो नास्ति ब्रह्मेति मन्यते, स सर्वस्यैव सन्मार्गस्य वर्णाश्रमादिव्यवस्थालक्षणस्य नास्तित्वं प्रतिपद्यते; ब्रह्मप्रतिपत्त्यर्थत्वात्तस्य। अतः नास्तिकः सः असन् असाधुरुच्यते लोके।
Or (the alternative meaning is): If a man thinks, ‘Brahman is nonexistence’, then that man, because of his faithlessness the entire righteous path consisting of the scheme of castes, stages of life, etc., becomes non-existent inasmuch as that path is not calculated to lead him to Brahman. Hence this atheist is called a-sat, unrighteous – in this world.

तद्विपरीतः सन् यः अस्ति ब्रह्मेति चेद्वेद, स तद्ब्रह्मप्रतिपत्तिहेतुं सन्मार्गं वर्णाश्रमादिव्यवस्थालक्षणं श्रद्दधानतया यथावत्प्रतिपद्यते यस्मात्, ततः तस्मात् सन्तं साधुमार्गस्थम् एनं विदुः साधवः। तस्मादस्तीत्येव ब्रह्म प्रतिपत्तव्यमिति वाक्यार्थः।
As opposed to such a man, if anyone knows that ‘Brahman does exist’, then, he, because of his faith, accepts properly the righteous path comprising the scheme of castes, stages of life, etc. and leading to the realization of Brahman. Since this is so, tataḥ, therefore; the good people; enam viduḥ, know this one as santam, treading the righteous path. The purport of the sentence is: Because of this fact, Brahman is to be accepted as surely existing.

तस्य पूर्वस्य विज्ञानमयस्य एष एव शरीरे विज्ञानमये भवः शारीरः आत्मा। कोऽसौ? एष आनन्दमयः।
Tasya pūrvasya, of the preceding one – of the cognitive one; eṣaḥ eva, this one, indeed; is śārīraḥ ātmā, the self existing in the body made of knowledge. Which is that? Yaḥ eṣaḥ, that which is this one, ātmā, the self, ānandamayaḥ, made of bliss.

तं प्रति नास्त्याशङ्का नास्तित्वे। अपोढसर्वविशेषत्वात्तु ब्रह्मणो नास्तित्वं प्रत्याशङ्का युक्ता; सर्वसाम्याच्च ब्रह्मणः।
As to this self there is no apprehension of non-existence. But Brahman’s non-existence may be suspected, since It is devoid of all distinctions, and since It is common to all.
[•Since Brahman pervades everything, Its utility should be perceptible at every turn. But actually this is not so. Hence Its existence can be questioned. But ānandamaya’s (blissful self’s) existence is not doubted in this sense. Hence ānandamaya is not the subject-matter of the verse quoted above.•]

यस्मादेवम्, अतः तस्मात् अथ अनन्तरं श्रोतुः शिष्यस्य अनुप्रश्नाः आचार्योक्तिमनु एते प्रश्नाः।
Since this is so, ataḥ, therefore; atha, afterwards; there are these anupraśnāḥ: praśnāḥ means questions, by the disciple who is the hearer, and anu means after; the questions after what the teacher has spoken are the anupraśnāḥ.

सामान्यं हि ब्रह्म आकाशादिकारणत्वात् विदुषः अविदुषश्च; अतः अविदुषोऽपि ब्रह्मप्राप्तिराशङ्क्यते –
Brahman, being the cause of space etc., is equally common to the man of knowledge and the ignorant. Therefore, it may be suspected that the ignorant man, too, reaches Brahman.

उत अपि अविद्वान् अमुं लोकं परमात्मानम् इतः प्रेत्य कश्चन, चनशब्दः अप्यर्थे, अविद्वानपि गच्छति प्राप्नोति?
Uta has the meaning of api (used in introducing a question). Cana is used in the sense of api (implying ‘even’). (Pretya), departing, from here; does kaḥ cana a-vidvān, even one who is ignorant; gacchati, reach; amum lokam, that world – the supreme Self?

‘किं वा न गच्छति?’ इति द्वितीयोऽपि प्रश्नो द्रष्टव्यः, अनुप्रश्ना इति बहुवचनात्।
The question, ‘Or does he not go?’ is implied because of the use of the plural number in ‘anupraśnāḥ, questions put after the teacher’s instruction.’

विद्वांसं प्रत्यन्यौ प्रश्नौ – यद्यविद्वान्सामान्यं कारणमपि ब्रह्म न गच्छति, अतो विदुषोऽपि ब्रह्मागमनमाशङ्क्यते;
The remaining two questions are with regard to the enlightened man. If the ignorant man fails to reach Brahman, though It is the common source of all, then the attainment of Brahman by an enlightened man may as well he doubted.

अतस्तं प्रति प्रश्नः – आहो विद्वान् इति। उकारं च वक्ष्यमाणमधस्तादपकृष्य तकारं च पूर्वस्मादुतशब्दाद्व्यासज्य आहो इत्येतस्मात्पूर्वमुतशब्दं संयोज्य पृच्छति – उताहो विद्वानिति। विद्वान् ब्रह्मविदपि कश्चित् इतः प्रेत्य अमुं लोकं समश्नुते प्राप्नोति। समश्नुते इत्येवं स्थिते, अयादेशे यलोपे च कृते, अकारस्य प्लुतिः – समश्नुता ३ उ इति। विद्वान्समश्नुते अमुं लोकम्;
Hence with regard to him is the question: Āho vidvān etc. Does kaścit, someone; who is a vidvān, an enlightened man, a knower of Brahman; pretya, departing, from here; amum lokam samaśnute, reach the other world? In the expression samaśnute u, the e (in -te) is replaced by ay, of which the y having been dropped out, the a becomes lengthened, and the expression becomes samaśnutā ३ u. And the letter u, occurring later, should be transferred from the bottom and the letter ta should be detached from uta, occuring earlier, (to form a new word uta). Placing this (new) uta before the word āho, the question is being put: ‘Uta āho vidvān...: Or does the enlightened man attain the other world?’

किं वा, यथा अविद्वान्, एवं विद्वानपि न समश्नुते इत्यपरः प्रश्नः।
The other question is: ‘Or does the enlightened man not attain it, just as the ignorant man does not?’

द्वावेव वा प्रश्नौ विद्वदविद्वद्विषयौ; बहुवचनं तु सामर्थ्यप्राप्तप्रश्नान्तरापेक्षया घटते।
Alternatively, there are only two questions relating to the enlightened and the unenlightened men. But the plural occurs with reference to other questions that may crop up by implication.

‘असद् ब्रह्मेति वेद चेत्’ ‘अस्ति ब्रह्मेति चेद्वेद’ इति श्रवणादस्ति नास्तीति संशयः।
From hearing, ‘If one knows Brahman, as non-existing’, and ‘if one knows that Brahman does exist’, the doubt arises as to whether It exists or does not exist.

ततः अर्थप्राप्तः किमस्ति नास्तीति प्रथमोऽनुप्रश्नः। ब्रह्मणः अपक्षपातित्वात् अविद्वान्गच्छति न गच्छतीति द्वितीयः।
From that, by implication, crops up this first question after the teacher’s instruction: ‘Does Brahman exist or does It not?’ The second one is: ‘Since Brahman is impartial, does the unenlightened man reach It or does he not?’

ब्रह्मणः समत्वेऽपि अविदुष इव विदुषोऽप्यगमनमाशङ्क्य किं विद्वान्समश्नुते न समश्नुते इति तृतीयोऽनुप्रश्नः।
Even if Brahman is equal to all, Its non-attainment in the case of the enlightened man can be suspected as much as in the case of the unenlightened one; and hence the third question following on the teacher’s instruction, is, ‘Does the man of knowledge attain or does he not?’

एतेषां प्रतिवचनार्थ उत्तरो ग्रन्थ आरभ्यते।
The succeeding text is introduced for answering these questions.

तत्र अस्तित्वमेव तावदुच्यते।
Apropos of this, existence is being first spoken of.

यच्चोक्तम् ‘सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म’ इति, तत्र च कथं सत्यत्वमित्येतद्वक्तव्यमिति इदमुच्यते। सत्त्वोक्त्यैव सत्यत्वमुच्यते। उक्तं हि सदेव सत्यमिति; तस्मात्सत्त्वोक्त्यैव सत्यत्वमुच्यते।
It remains to be explained as to what kind of truth is meant in the assertion that was made thus: ‘Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite’. Hence it is being said: Brahman’s truth is affirmed by speaking of Its existence; for it has been asserted that the existing is the true (an echo of ChanU.6.2.1). Therefore, the very affirmation of existence amounts to an avowal of reality.

कथमेवमर्थता अवगम्यते अस्य ग्रन्थस्य? शब्दानुगमात्। अनेनैव ह्यर्थेनान्वितानि उत्तरवाक्यानि – ‘तत्सत्यमित्याचक्षते’ (TaitU.2.6.1) ‘यदेष आकाश आनन्दो न स्यात्’ (TaitU.2.7.1) इत्यादीनि।
How is it known that this text bears such an import? From the trend of the words of this text. For the succeeding sentences such as, ‘They call that (Brahman) Truth’ (TaitU.2.6.1), ‘(Who, indeed will inhale and who exhale) if this Bliss (Brahman) be not there in the supreme space (within the heart)?’ (TaitU.2.7.1), are connected with this very purport.

तत्र असदेव ब्रह्मेत्याशङ्क्यते। कस्मात्? यदस्ति, तद्विशेषतो गृह्यते; यथा घटादि। यन्नास्ति, तन्नोपलभ्यते; यथा शशविषाणादि।
Objection: While on this topic, the suspicion arises that Brahman is surely non-existent. Why? Because whatever exists is perceived as possessed of distinctive attributes, as for instance a pot etc. Whatever is nonexistent is not perceived, as for instance the horn of a hare etc.

तथा नोपलभ्यते ब्रह्म; तस्माद्विशेषतः अग्रहणान्नास्तीति।
Similarly, Brahman is not perceived. So It does not exist, since It is not perceived as possessed of distinguishing attributes.

तन्न, आकाशादिकारणत्वाद्ब्रह्मणः। न नास्ति ब्रह्म।
Answer: This is not tenable, since Brahman is the cause of space etc. It is not a fact that Brahman does not exist.

कस्मात्? आकाशादि हि सर्वं कार्यं ब्रह्मणो जातं गृह्यते; यस्माच्च जायते किञ्चित्, तदस्तीति दृष्टं लोके, यथा घटाङ्कुरादिकारणं मृद्बीजादि; तस्मादाकाशादिकारणत्वादस्ति ब्रह्म। न चासतो जातं किञ्चिद्गृह्यते लोके कार्यम्।
Why? Since all the products issuing from Brahman, such as space etc., are perceived. It is a matter of common experience in this world that any thing from which something is produced does exist, as for instance, earth, seed, etc., which are the causes of a pot, a sprout, etc. So Brahman does exist, since It is the cause of space etc. And, no effect is perceived in this world as having been produced from a nonentity.

असतश्चेन्नामरूपादि कार्यम्, निरात्मकत्वान्नोपलभ्येत; उपलभ्यते तु; तस्मादस्ति ब्रह्म।
If such effects as name and form had originated from a nonentity, they should not, have been perceived since they have no reality. But they are perceived. Hence Brahman exists.

असतश्चेत्कार्यं गृह्यमाणमपि असदन्वितमेव स्यात्; न चैवम्; तस्मादस्ति ब्रह्म।
Should any effect originate from a nonentity, it should remain soaked in unreality even while being perceived. But facts point otherwise. Therefore Brahman exists.

तत्र ‘कथमसतः सज्जायेत’ (ChanU.6.2.2) इति श्रुत्यन्तरमसतः सज्जन्मासंभवमन्वाचष्टे न्यायतः। तस्मात्सदेव ब्रह्मेति युक्तम्।
Pertaining to this another Veda text – ‘How can a thing that exists come out of a thing that does not?’ (ChanU.6.2.2) – points out logically the impossibility of the creation of something out of nothing. Therefore, it stands to reason that Brahman is verily a reality.

तद्यदि मृद्बीजादिवत् कारणं स्यात्, अचेतनं तर्हि।
Objection: Should that Brahman be a cause like earth, seed, etc., It will be insentient.

न; कामयितृत्वात्। न हि कामयित्रचेतनमस्ति लोके। सर्वज्ञं हि ब्रह्मेत्यवोचाम; अतः कामयितृत्वोपपत्तिः।
Answer: No, since It is capable of desiring. Certainly it is not a matter of experience that one who can desire can be insentient. We have said that Brahman is indeed omniscient; and so it is but reasonable that It should be capable of desiring.

कामयितृत्वादस्मदादिवदनाप्तकाममिति चेत्,
Objection: Since Brahman has desires, It has unfulfilled desires like ourselves.

न; स्वातन्त्र्यात्। यथा अन्यान्परवशीकृत्य कामादिदोषाः प्रवर्तयन्ति, न तथा ब्रह्मणः प्रवर्तकाः कामाः। कथं तर्हि? सत्यज्ञानलक्षणाः स्वात्मभूतत्वाद्विशुद्धाः।
Answer: Not so, for It is independent. Such defects as desire cannot impel Brahman (to action) just as they do others by subjecting them to their influence. What then are these (desires of Brahman)? They are by nature truth and knowledge, and they are pure by virtue of their identity with Brahman.
[•“Brahman, as reflected on Māyā, is the material cause of the world, and It is possessed of desires that are the modifications of Māyā. But these modifications are not distinguishable from truth and knowledge, since they are permeated by Consciousness that is not subject to ignorance etc.; and they are pure, since they are untouched by unrighteousness etc. by virtue of their non-distinction from Brahman.”-A.G.•]

न तैर्ब्रह्म प्रवर्त्यते; तेषां तु तत्प्रवर्तकं ब्रह्म प्राणिकर्मापेक्षया। तस्मात्स्वातन्त्र्यं कामेषु ब्रह्मणः; अतो न अनाप्तकामं ब्रह्म।
Brahman is not impelled to action by them. But Brahman ordains them in accordance with the results of actions of the creatures. Therefore, Brahman has independence with regard to desires. So Brahman has no want.

साधनान्तरानपेक्षत्वाच्च। यथा अन्येषामनात्मभूता धर्मादिनिमित्तापेक्षाः कामाः स्वात्मव्यतिरिक्तकार्यकरणसाधनान्तरापेक्षाश्च, न तथा ब्रह्मणः।
And this follows also from the fact of Brahman’s non-dependence on any other means. Further, Brahman has no dependence on accessories etc., as others have whose desires are not identified with themselves but are dependent on such causes as righteousness, and require the extraneous body and senses as their instruments.

किं तर्हि? स्वात्मनोऽनन्याः।
How do they exist then (in Brahman)? They are non-different from Itself.
[•“Since Māyā, as possessed of the impressions of desires, has identity with Brahman (through superimposition), the desires, that are the modifications of this Māyā, have also identity with Brahman. Therefore, there is no need for a physical body, etc.” (for making possible the existence of desires in Brahman, as it is in our case)-A.G.•]

तदेतदाह – सोऽकामयत। सः आत्मा यस्मादाकाशः संभूतः, अकामयत कामितवान्। कथम्? बहु प्रभूतं स्यां भवेयम्।
That fact is stated in saḥ akāmayata: saḥ, the Self from which space originated; akāmayata, desired. How? Bahu syām: syām, I shall become; bahu, many.

कथमेकस्यार्थान्तराननुप्रवेशे बहुत्वं स्यादिति, उच्यते – प्रजायेय उत्पद्येय।
Objection: How can the One become many, unless It enters into something else? The answer is, ‘prajāyeya, I shall be born’.

न हि पुत्रोत्पत्तेरिवार्थान्तरविषयं बहुभवनम्। कथं तर्हि? आत्मस्थानभिव्यक्तनामरूपाभिव्यक्त्या।
The multiplication here does not refer to becoming something extraneous as one does by begetting a son. How then? Through the manifestation of name and form that are latent in Itself.

यदा आत्मस्थे अनभिव्यक्ते नामरूपे व्याक्रियेते, तदा आत्मस्वरूपापरित्यागेनैव ब्रह्मणः अप्रविभक्तदेशकाले सर्वावस्थासु व्याक्रियेते। तदेतन्नामरूपव्याकरणं ब्रह्मणो बहुभवनम्।
When name and form existing latently in the Self get manifested, they evolve – by retaining their intrinsic nature as the Self under all conditions in time and space which are inseparable from Brahman. Then that evolution of name and form is (what is called) the appearance of Brahman as the many.

नान्यथा निरवयवस्य ब्रह्मणो बहुत्वापत्तिरुपपद्यते अल्पत्वं वा, यथा आकाशस्याल्पत्वं बहुत्वं च वस्त्वन्तरकृतमेव।
In no other way is it possible for the partless Brahman to become either multiple or finite; as for instance, the finitude and plurality of space are surely the creations of extraneous factors.

अतः तद्द्वारेणैवात्मा बहु भवति। न ह्यात्मनोऽन्यदनात्मभूतं तत्प्रविभक्तदेशकालं सूक्ष्मं व्यवहितं विप्रकृष्टं भूतं भवद्भविष्यद्वा वस्तु विद्यते।
Hence the Self becomes multiple through these alone. For no such subtle, disconnected and remote thing exists as a non-Self, in the past, present, or future, which is different from the Self and separated from It by time or space.

अतः नामरूपे सर्वावस्थे ब्रह्मणैवात्मवती। न ब्रह्म तदात्मकम्। ते तत्प्रत्याख्याने न स्त एवेति तदात्मके उच्येते। ताभ्यां च उपाधिभ्यां ज्ञातृज्ञेयज्ञानशब्दार्थादिसर्वसंव्यवहारभाग्ब्रह्म
Therefore, it is only because of Brahman that name and form have their being under all circumstances, but Brahman does not consist of them. They are said to be essentially Brahman, since they cease to exist when Brahman is eliminated. And, conditioned by these two limiting adjuncts, Brahman becomes a factor in all empirical dealings involving such words as knower, knowable and knowledge, as also their implications etc.

सः आत्मा एवंकामः सन् तपः अतप्यत। तप इति ज्ञानमुच्यते, ‘यस्य ज्ञानमयं तपः’ (MunU.1.1.9) इति श्रुत्यन्तरात्। आप्तकामत्वाच्च इतरस्य असंभव एव तपसः। तत्तपः अतप्यत तप्तवान्, सृज्यमानजगद्रचनादिविषयाम् आलोचनाम् अकरोद् आत्मेत्यर्थः।
Having such a desire, saḥ, He – that Self; tapaḥ atapyata: by tapas is meant knowledge since another Veda text says, ‘He whose tapas consists of knowledge’ (MunU.1.1.9), and since the other kind of tapas (austerity) is out of place in one in whom all desires remain fulfilled. That kind of tapas, knowledge; he atapyata, practised. The idea is that the Self reflected on the plan etc. of the world being created.

सः एवमालोच्य तपः तप्त्वा प्राणिकर्मादिनिमित्तानुरूपम् इदं सर्वं जगत् देशतः कालतः नाम्ना रूपेण च यथानुभवं सर्वैः प्राणिभिः सर्वावस्थैरनुभूयमानम् असृजत सृष्टवान्। यदिदं किञ्च यत्किंचेदमविशिष्टम्, तत् इदं जगत् सृष्ट्वा, किमकरोदिति, उच्यते – तदेव सृष्टं जगत् अनुप्राविशद् इति।
Saḥ tapaḥ taptvā, He, having reflected thus; asṛjata, created, in consonance with such contributory factors as the results of actions of creatures; idam sarvam, all this; yat idam kiñca, whatever there is, without any exception – this universe, together with space, time, name, and form as He perceived it, and as it is perceived by all beings under various circumstances. Brahman, sṛṣṭvā, having created; tat, that, this world; what did He do? the answer is tat eva, into that very world, which had been created; anuprāviśat, He entered.

तत्रैतच्चिन्त्यम् – कथमनुप्राविशदिति। किम्, यः स्रष्टा, स तेनैवात्मनानुप्राविशत्, उत अन्येनेति? किं तावद्युक्तम्?
With regard to this, it is a matter for consideration as to how He entered. Did the Creator enter in that very form of His or in some other form? Which is the reasonable position?

क्त्वाप्रत्ययश्रवणात्, यः स्रष्टा, स एवानुप्राविशदिति।
Pseudo-Vedāntin: From the use of the suffix ktvā (-ing), it follows that the Creator Himself entered.
[•Grammar indicates that the finite verb and the verb ending with ktvā (-ing), in the same sentence, refer to the same nominative.•]

ननु न युक्तं मृद्वच्चेत्कारणं ब्रह्म, तदात्मकत्वात्कार्यस्य, कारणमेव हि कार्यात्मना परिणमते; अतः अप्रविष्टस्यैव कार्योत्पत्तेरूर्ध्वं पृथक्कारणस्य पुनः प्रवेशोऽनुपपन्नः। न हि घटपरिणामव्यतिरेकेण मृदो घटे प्रवेशोऽस्ति।
Objection: Is that not illogical, since on the supposition that Brahman is a (material) cause in the same sense as clay is (of pot etc.), the effects are non-different from Brahman? For it is the cause that becomes transformed into the effect. Hence it is illogical that, after the production of the effect, the cause should enter over again into the effect as a separate entity, as though it had not done so already.
[•The action denoted by the verb having the suffix ktvā precedes the action of the finite verb. This is not possible here, since the production of the effect and the entry of the cause into it are simultaneous.•]
Apart from being shaped into a pot, the clay has no other entry into the pot, to be sure.

यथा घटे चूर्णात्मना मृदोऽनुप्रवेशः, एवमनेन आत्मना नामरूपकार्ये अनुप्रवेश आत्मनः इति चेत्, श्रुत्यन्तराच्च ‘अनेन जीवेनात्मनानुप्रविश्य’ (ChanU.6.3.2) इति;
Pseudo-Vedāntin: Just as earth, in the form of dust, enters into a pot (made of earth), similarly, the Self can enter into name and form under some other guise. And this also follows from another Veda text, ‘By entering in the form of the soul of each individual being...’ (ChanU.6.3.2).

नैवं युक्तम्, एकत्वाद्ब्रह्मणः। मृदात्मनस्त्वनेकत्वात् सावयवत्वाच्च युक्तो घटे मृदश्चूर्णात्मनानुप्रवेशः, मृदश्चूर्णस्य अप्रविष्टदेशत्वाच्च। न त्वात्मन एकत्वे सति निरवयवत्वादप्रविष्टदेशाभावाच्च प्रवेश उपपद्यते;
Objection: This is not proper, since Brahman is one. In the case of earth, however, it is possible to enter into a pot in the form of dust, since lumps of earth are many and have parts, and since powder of earth has places still unoccupied by it. In the case of the Self, however, there cannot possibly be any entry, since It is one at the same time that It has no dimension and has nowhere to enter into.

कथं तर्हि प्रवेशः स्यात्? युक्तश्च प्रवेशः, श्रुतत्वात् – ‘तदेवानुप्राविशत्’ इति। सावयवमेवास्तु; तर्हि सावयवत्वात् मुखो हस्तप्रवेशवत् नामरूपकार्ये जीवात्मनानुप्रवेशो युक्त एवेति चेत्,
Pseudo-Vedāntin: What kind of entry will it be then? And, the fact of entry has to be upheld in view of the Upaniṣad statement: ‘He entered into that very thing.’ That being so, Brahman may as well have dimensions, and having dimensions, it is but proper that Brahman’s entry in the form of an individual soul into name and form should be like that of a hand into the mouth.

न; अशून्यदेशत्वात्। न हि कार्यात्मना परिणतस्य नामरूपकार्यदेशव्यतिरेकेण आत्मशून्यः प्रदेशोऽस्ति, यं प्रविशेज्जीवात्मना।
Objection: No, since there is no empty space. For Brahman, which has become transformed into effects, has no other space – apart from that occupied by the effects, consisting of name and form – which is devoid of It and into which It can enter as an individual soul.

कारणमेव चेत्प्रविशेत्, जीवात्मत्वं जह्यात्, यथा घटो मृत्प्रवेशे घटत्वं जहाति।
Should It (i.e. Brahman as the individual soul) enter into the cause (viz Brahman as name and form),
[•Brahman is the common cause of everything including the individual souls. Now, the individual soul may enter into Brahman which, though transformed as name and form, is still its cause.•]
It will cease to be an individual soul, just as a pot ceases to be a pot on entering into (i.e. on being reduced to) earth.

‘तदेवानुप्राविशत्’ इति च श्रुतेर्न कारणानुप्रवेशो युक्तः।
Hence the text, ‘He entered into that very thing’, cannot justifiably imply entry into the cause.

कार्यान्तरमेव स्यादिति चेत् – तदेवानुप्राविशदिति जीवात्मरूपं कार्यं नामरूपपरिणतं कार्यान्तरमेव आपद्यत इति चेत्,
Pseudo-Vedāntin: Let (the entry be into) another effect. The text, ‘He entered into that very thing’, means that one effect, viz the individual soul, entered into another effect made of name and form.

न; विरोधात्। न हि घटो घटान्तरमापद्यते, व्यतिरेकश्रुतिविरोधाच्च। जीवस्य नामरूपकार्यव्यतिरेकानुवादिन्यः श्रुतयो विरुध्येरन्;
Objection: No, since this involves a contradiction; for a pot does not become merged into another pot. Besides, this runs counter to the Veda texts that speak of their distinction; so, the Veda texts that reaffirm the difference of the individual soul from the effect, name and form, will be contradicted.

तदापत्तौ मोक्षासंभवाच्च। न हि यतो मुच्यमानः, तदेव आपद्यते। न हि शृङ्खलापत्तिः बद्धस्य तस्करादेः।
Furthermore, if the soul merges into name and form, liberation will be impossible. It does not stand to reason that one merges into what one tries to get freed from. A chained thief does not enter into fetters.

बाह्यान्तर्भेदेन परिणतमिति चेत् – तदेव कारणं ब्रह्म शरीराद्याधारत्वेन तदन्तर्जीवात्मना आधेयत्वेन च परिणतमिति चेत्,
Pseudo-Vedāntin: Suppose Brahman is transformed into two parts, external and internal. To explain, that very Brahman which is the cause, has become diversified as the receptacle in the shape of body etc., and as the thing contained in the shape of the embodied soul.

न; बहिष्ठस्य प्रवेशोपपत्तेः। न हि यो यस्यान्तःस्थः स एव तत्प्रविष्ट उच्यते। बहिष्ठस्यानुप्रवेशः स्यात्, प्रवेशशब्दार्थस्यैवं दृष्टत्वात् – यथा गृहं कृत्वा प्राविशदिति।
Objection: No, for entry is possible only for what is outside. Not that a thing which is (naturally) contained within another is said to have entered there. The entry should be of something that is outside, for the word entry (praveśa) is seen to carry that sense, as for instance in the sentence, ‘He entered into the house after erecting it.’

जलसूर्यकादिप्रतिबिम्बवत् प्रवेशः स्यादिति चेत्,
Pseudo-Vedāntin: The entry may be like that of the reflections of the sun etc. in water.

न; अपरिच्छिन्नत्वादमूर्तत्वाच्च।
Objection: No, since Brahman is not limited, and since It has no configuration.

परिच्छिन्नस्य मूर्तस्यान्यस्य अन्यत्र प्रसादस्वभावके जलादौ सूर्यकादिप्रतिबिम्बोदयः स्यात्, न त्वात्मनः; अमूर्तत्वात्, आकाशादिकारणस्य आत्मनः व्यापकत्वात्। तद्विप्रकृष्टदेशप्रतिबिम्बाधारवस्त्वन्तराभावाच्च प्रतिबिम्बवत्प्रवेशो न युक्तः।
A distinct thing that is limited and has features can be a production of reflection on something else which is by nature transparent, as for instance, the sun etc. can be reflected on water; but of the Self there can be no reflection, since It has no form. Moreover, the entry of the Self in the form of a reflection is not possible, since the Self is all-pervasive, being the cause of space etc., and since there is no other substance which can hold the Self’s reflection by being placed somewhere unconnected with the Self.

एवं तर्हि नैवास्ति प्रवेशः; न च गत्यन्तरमुपलभामहे, ‘तदेवानुप्राविशत्’ इति श्रुतेः। श्रुतिश्च नोऽतीन्द्रियविषये विज्ञानोत्पत्तौ निमित्तम्। न चास्माद्वाक्यात् यत्नवतामपि विज्ञानमुत्पद्यते। हन्त तर्ह्यनर्थकत्वादपोह्यमेतद्वाक्यम् ‘तत्सृष्ट्वा तदेवानुप्राविशत्’ इति;
This being so, there is no entry whatsoever. Nor do we find any other interpretation possible for the text, ‘He entered into that very thing.’ And a Veda text is meant to enlighten us about super-sensuous realities. But from this sentence, not even diligent people can derive any enlightenment. Well, then, this sentence, ‘Having created it, He entered into that very thing,’ has to be discarded, since it conveys no meaning.

न, अन्यार्थत्वात्। किमर्थमस्थाने चर्चा?
Vedāntin’s answer: No, (it need not be discarded). As the sentence bears a different meaning, why should there be this discussion that is out of context?

प्रकृतो ह्यन्यो विवक्षितोऽस्य वाक्यार्थः अस्ति; स स्मर्तव्यः – ‘ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम्’ (TaitU.2.1.1) ‘सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म’ (TaitU.2.1.1) ‘यो वेद निहितं गुहायाम्’ (TaitU.2.1.1) इति।
You should remember the other meaning which is implied in this sentence and which is the subject under discussion here, as stated in the text: ‘The knower of Brahman attains the highest.... Brahman is truth, knowledge, and infinite.... He who knows (that Brahman) as existing in the intellect (lodged in the supreme space in the heart)’ (TaitU.2.1.1).

तद्विज्ञानं च विवक्षितम्; प्रकृतं च तत्। ब्रह्मस्वरूपावगमाय च आकाशाद्यन्नमयान्तं कार्यं प्रदर्शितम्; ब्रह्मावगमश्च आरब्धः।
The knowledge of that Brahman is sought to be imparted, and that is also the topic under discussion. And the effects, beginning with space and ending with the body made of food, have been introduced with a view to acquiring the knowledge of the nature of that Brahman, and the topic started with is also the knowledge of Brahman.

तत्र अन्नमयादात्मनोऽन्योऽन्तर आत्मा प्राणमयः; तदन्तर्मनोमयो विज्ञानमय इति विज्ञानगुहायां प्रवेशितः; तत्र च आनन्दमयो विशिष्ट आत्मा प्रदर्शितः।
Of these, the self made of the vital force indwells and is different from the self made of food; within that is the self made of mind and the self made of intellect. Thus (by stages) the Self has been made to enter into the cavity of the intellect. And there, again, has been presented a distinct self that is made of bliss.

अतः परमानन्दमयलिङ्गाधिगमद्वारेण आनन्दविवृद्ध्यवसान आत्मा। ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा सर्वविकल्पास्पदो निर्विकल्पोऽस्यामेव गुहायामधिगन्तव्य इति तत्प्रवेशः प्रकल्प्यते।
After this, through the comprehension of the blissful self which acts as a pointer (to the Bliss-Brahman), one has to realize, within this very cavity (of the heart), that Self as the culmination of the growth of bliss, which is Brahman (conceived of) as the stabilizing tail (of the blissful self), which is the support of all modifications and which is devoid of all modifications. It is with this idea that the entry of the Self is imagined.

न ह्यन्यत्रोपलभ्यते ब्रह्म, निर्विशेषत्वात्; विशेषसंबन्धो ह्युपलब्धिहेतुर्दृष्टः – यथा राहोश्चन्द्रार्कविशेषसंबन्धः।
Inasmuch as Brahman has no distinctive attribute, It cannot he realized anywhere else. It is a matter of experience that knowledge of a thing is dependent on its particular associations. Just as the knowledge of Rāhu arises from its association with the distinct entities, the sun and the moon,
[•Rāhu is a mythological being that has no limb except a head. During eclipses it swallows the sun or the moon, and then alone we are conscious of its existence.•]

एवमन्तःकरणगुहात्मसंबन्धो ब्रह्मण उपलब्धिहेतुः, संनिकर्षात्, अवभासात्मकत्वाच्च अन्तःकरणस्य। यथा च आलोकविशिष्टघटाद्युपलब्धिः, एवं बुद्धिप्रत्ययालोकविशिष्टात्मोपलब्धिः स्यात्,
Similarly, the association of the Self with the cavity of the internal organ causes the knowledge of Brahman, for the internal organ has proximity (to the Self) and the nature of illumination. Just as pot etc. are perceived when in contact with light, so also the Self is perceived when in contact with the light of intellectual conviction.
[•A thing becomes illumined with the light of knowledge, only when the internal organ is in contact with it, but not otherwise. A reflecting medium must be transparent enough to catch an image properly. The intellect alone can reflect the Self best. Again, light removes darkness, though both are insentient, similarly, intellectual conviction removes ignorance, though both are insentient. The intellect cannot reveal Brahman objectively.•]

तस्मात् उपलब्धिहेतौ गुहायां निहितमिति प्रकृतमेव। तद्वृत्तिस्थानीये त्विह पुनस्तत्सृष्ट्वा तदेवानुप्राविशदित्युच्यते।
Hence, it suits the context to say that the Self is lodged in the cavity of the intellect which is the cause of Its experience. In the present passage, however, which is a sort of elaboration of that theme, the same idea is repeated in the form, ‘Having created it, He entered into that very thing.’

तत् एवेदमाकाशादिकारणं कार्यं सृष्ट्वा तदनुप्रविष्टमिवान्तर्गुहायां बुद्धौ द्रष्टृ श्रोतृ मन्तृ विज्ञात्रित्येवं विशेषवदुपलभ्यते। स एव तस्य प्रवेशः; तस्मादस्ति तत्कारणं ब्रह्म। अतः अस्तित्वादस्तीत्येवोपलब्धव्यं तत्।
Tat, that very Brahman Itself which is the cause of space; and which, sṛṣṭvā, after creating the effect, has entered into the creation, as it were, is perceived within the cavity of intellect, as possessed of such distinctions as being a seer, a hearer, a thinker, a knower, etc. That, indeed, is Its entry. Hence Brahman, as the cause of this (phenomenon), must exist. Accordingly, just because It exists, It should surely be apprehended as such.

तत् कार्यम् अनुप्रविश्य; किम्? सच्च मूर्तं त्यच्च अमूर्तम् अभवत्। मूर्तामूर्ते ह्यव्याकृतनामरूपे आत्मस्थे अन्तर्गतेन आत्मना व्याक्रियेते मूर्तामूर्तशब्दवाच्ये। ते आत्मना त्वप्रविभक्तदेशकाले इति कृत्वा आत्मा ते अभवदित्युच्यते।
What did It do; anupraviśya, after entering the creation? It abhavat, became; sat ca, the formed (gross); tyat ca, and the formless (subtle). The formed and the formless, existing in the Self in their state of unmanifested name and form, are manifested by the indwelling Self; and even when manifested and known as the formed and the formless, they still continue to be inseparable from the Self in time and space. Having this fact in view, it is said that the Self became these two.

किं च, निरुक्तं च अनिरुक्तं च, निरुक्तं नाम निष्कृष्य समानासमानजातीयेभ्यः देशकालविशिष्टतया इदं तदित्युक्तम्; अनिरुक्तं तद्विपरीतम्; निरुक्तानिरुक्ते अपि मूर्तामूर्तयोरेव विशेषणे।
Moreover, the (Self became) niruktam ca a-niruktam ca, the definable and the undefinable. Nirukta is that which is definable as ‘this is that’, by distinguishing it from things of its own class as also from things of other classes, and by associating it with a certain time and space. A-nirukta is its opposite. Nirukta and a-nirukta, too, are but attributes of the formed and the formless.

यथा सच्च त्यच्च प्रत्यक्षपरोक्षे, तथा निलयनं च अनिलयनं च। निलयनं नीडम् आश्रयः मूर्तस्यैव धर्मः; अनिलयनं तद्विपरीतम् अमूर्तस्यैव धर्मः। त्यदनिरुक्तानिलयनानि अमूर्तधर्मत्वेऽपि व्याकृतविषयाण्येव, सर्गोत्तरकालभावश्रवणात्। त्यदिति प्राणाद्यनिरुक्तं तदेवानिलयनं च। अतो विशेषणानि अमूर्तस्य व्याकृतविषयाण्येवैतानि।
Just as the formed and the formless are the visible and invisible, so also are the nilayanam ca a-nilayanam ca, the sustaining and the non-sustaining. Nilayana means a nest, that which supports; and this is an attribute of the formed. A-nilayana, a non-supporting thing – is opposed to that (nilayana) and is an attribute of the formless. Though ‘invisible’, ‘undefinable’, and ‘non-supporting’ are the attributes of the formless, they relate only to the manifested state, for they are referred to in the Vedas as occurring after creation. By tyat, the formless, are meant the vital force etc. which are inexpressible, and it is non-sustaining as well. So, all these adjectives belonging to the formless, relate to the manifested (created).

विज्ञानं चेतनम्; अविज्ञानं तद्रहितमचेतनं पाषाणादि।
Vijñānam is sentient, and a-vijñānam is devoid of that (sentience), insentient stone etc.

सत्यं च व्यवहारविषयम्, अधिकारात्; न परमार्थसत्यम्; एकमेव हि परमार्थसत्यं ब्रह्म। इह पुनः व्यवहारविषयमापेक्षिकं सत्यम्, मृगतृष्णिकाद्यनृतापेक्षया उदकादि सत्यमुच्यते। अनृतं च तद्विपरीतम्।
It follows from the context that satyam is truth falling within the range of the empirical, and not absolute truth. For the absolute truth is only one, which is Brahman. But here the relative truth, as found in the empirical world, is referred to; as for instance, water is said to be true in comparison with the water in a mirage which is false. An-ṛtam, untruth, is the opposite of that.

किं पुनः? एतत्सर्वम् अभवत्, सत्यं परमार्थसत्यम्; किं पुनस्तत्? ब्रह्म, ‘सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म’ इति प्रकृतत्वात्।
Again, what is it that abhavat, became, all this? That which is satyam, the absolute truth. What is that, again? It is Brahman; for it is Brahman that has been introduced as the topic of discussion by the sentence, ‘Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite.’

यस्मात्, सत्त्यदादिकं मूर्तामूर्तधर्मजातं यत् किंच इदं सर्वमविशिष्टं विकारजातमेकमेव सच्छब्दवाच्यं ब्रह्माभवत्, तद्व्यतिरेकेणाभावान्नामरूपविकारस्य, तस्मात् तत् ब्रह्म सत्यम् इति आचक्षते ब्रह्मविदः।
The knowers of Brahman ācakṣate, call It; satyam, truth; because it is the one Brahman, called satya, truth, that abhavat, became; yat kiñca idam, all this that there is – all modifications, without any exception, starting with the visible and the invisible, all of which are the features of the formed and the formless –, there being no existence for any of these modifications of name and form apart from that Brahman.

अस्ति नास्तीत्यनुप्रश्नः प्रकृतः; तस्य प्रतिवचनविषये एतदुक्तम् – ‘आत्माकामयत बहु स्याम्’ इति। स यथाकामं च आकाशादिकार्यं सत्त्यदादिलक्षणं सृष्ट्वा तदनुप्रविश्य पश्यञ्शृण्वन्मन्वानो विजानन् बह्वभवत्;
The question that was mooted after the teacher’s instruction concerned existence and non-existence. As an answer to this, it has been said that the Self desired, ‘I shall become many.’ After creating, in accordance with His wish, such products as space etc. which are characterized as the visible and invisible etc., and then entering into them, He became many through His acts of seeing, hearing, thinking, and knowing.

तस्मात् तदेवेदमाकाशादिकारणं कार्यस्थं परमे व्योमन् हृदयगुहायां निहितं तत्प्रत्ययावभासविशेषेणोपलभ्यमानमस्तीत्येवं विजानीयादित्युक्तं भवति।
Hence it is implied thereby that this Self must be accepted as existing, since It is the cause of space etc., exists in this creation, is lodged in the supreme space within the cavity of the heart, and is perceived through Its diverse reflections on the mental concepts.
[•The mental concepts are “I am a doer”, “I am an enjoyer”, etc.; and these, again, being the different appearances of the light of the Self, reveal the Self in Its conditioned form, and not in Its unconditioned essence.•]

तत् एतस्मिन्नर्थे ब्राह्मणोक्ते एषः श्लोकः मन्त्रः भवति। यथा पूर्वेष्वन्नमयाद्यात्मप्रकाशकाः पञ्चस्वपि, एवं सर्वान्तरतमात्मास्तित्वप्रकाशकोऽपि मन्त्रः कार्यद्वारेण भवति॥

Tat, pertaining to this – concerning this idea expressed in the brāhmaṇa portion; eṣaḥ ślokaḥ bhavati, occurs this verse. Just as in the preceding five chapters occurred verses expressive of the selves, counting from the one constituted by food, so, too, is there this verse which indicates through Its effects the existence of the Self as the inmost of all.

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


असद्वा इदमग्र आसीत्। असद् इति व्याकृतनामरूपविशेषविपरीतरूपम् अव्याकृतं ब्रह्म उच्यते; न पुनरत्यन्तमेवासत्। न ह्यसतः सज्जन्मास्ति। इदम् इति नामरूपविशेषवद्व्याकृतं जगत्; अग्रे पूर्वं प्रागुत्पत्तेः ब्रह्मैव असच्छब्दवाच्यम् आसीत्
A-sat vai idam agre āsīt, in the beginning all this was but the unmanifested (Brahman). By the word a-sat is meant the unmanifested state of Brahman as contrasted with the state in which distinctions of name and form become manifested. Not that absolute non-existence (the root meaning of the word, a-sat) is meant, for the existent cannot come out of the nonexistent. Idam, this standing for the manifested world possessed of the distinctions of name and form; agre, in the beginning before creation; as it a-sat, was but Brahman that could be called a-sat.

ततः असतः वै सत् प्रविभक्तनामरूपविशेषम् अजायत उत्पन्नम्।
Tataḥ, from that – from that Unmanifested; vai, indeed; sat, that which is distinguished by manifested name and form; ajāyata, was born.

किं ततः प्रविभक्तं कार्यमिति – पितुरिव पुत्रः? नेत्याह। तत् असच्छब्दवाच्यं स्वयम् एव आत्मानम् एव अकुरुत कृतवत्।
Is the effect entirely separate from that (cause), just as a son is from the father? The answer is being given negatively: Tat, that which is called the Unmanifested (Brahman); svayam, Itself; akuruta, created; ātmānam, Itself.

यस्मादेवम्, तस्मात् तत् ब्रह्मैव सुकृतं स्वयं कर्तृ उच्यते
Since this is so, tasmāt, therefore; tat, that Brahman Itself; ucyate, is called; the su-kṛtam, self-creator.
[•Su-kṛtam (standing for sva-kṛta) should mean self-created. But Śaṅkara takes it as a Veda licence for self-creator—A.G.•]

स्वयं कर्तृ ब्रह्मेति प्रसिद्धं लोके सर्वकारणत्वात्। यस्माद्वा स्वयमकरोत्सर्वं सर्वात्मना, तस्मात्पुण्यरूपेणापि तदेव ब्रह्म कारणं सुकृतम् उच्यते।
By virtue of being the cause of everything, Brahman is well recognized in this world as the self-creator. Or, since Brahman Itself created everything by virtue of Its being everything, therefore that very Brahman, which is the cause from the standpoint of virtue as well, is called su-kṛta (merit).
[•Su-kṛta (lit. well done) means merit, which is one of the causes of creation.*}

सर्वथापि तु फलसंबन्धादिकारणं सुकृतशब्दवाच्यं प्रसिद्धं लोके। यदि पुण्यं यदि वा अन्यत् सा प्रसिद्धिः नित्ये चेतनकारणे सति उपपद्यते, तस्मादस्ति ब्रह्म, सुकृतप्रसिद्धेरिति।
At all events, whether the meaning of su-kṛta be ‘merit’ or it be the other one (self-creator), that cause which brings (one) into association etc. with a result is familiarly known in the world as su-kṛta. That well known fact is possible only if there is an eternal consciousness acting as the cause. Hence, from the well known fact of su-kṛta, it follows that Brahman exists.

इतश्चास्ति; कुतः? रसत्वात्।
It exists because of this further reason. Of which reason? Since It is the source of joy.

कुतो रसत्वप्रसिद्धिर्ब्रह्मण इत्यत आह – यद्वै तत्सुकृतं रसो वै सः
How is Brahman well known as the source of joy? The answer is: yad vai tat su-kṛtam, that which is known as the self-creator; rasaḥ vai saḥ, is verily the rasaḥ, (a source of joy).

रसो नाम तृप्तिहेतुः आनन्दकरो मधुराम्लादिः प्रसिद्धो लोके। रसम् एव हि अयं लब्ध्वा प्राप्य आनन्दी सुखी भवति
Rasaḥ stands for anything that is a means for satisfaction, i.e. a source of joy, such as sweet and sour things which are well known to be so in the world. Rasam labdhvā, getting a thing of joy; ayam bhavati, one becomes; ānandī, happy.

नासत आनन्दहेतुत्वं दृष्टं लोके। बाह्यानन्दसाधनरहिता अपि अनीहा निरेषणा ब्राह्मणा बाह्यरसलाभादिव सानन्दा दृश्यन्ते विद्वांसः; नूनं ब्रह्मैव रसस्तेषाम्।
A nonentity is not seen in this world to be a cause of happiness. Inasmuch as those Brāhmaṇas who have realized Brahman are seen to be as happy as one is from obtaining an external source of joy – though, in fact, they do not take help of any external means of happiness, make no effort, and cherish no desire, it follows, as a matter of course, that Brahman is, indeed, the source of their joy.

तस्मादस्ति तत्तेषामानन्दकारणं रसवद्ब्रह्म।
Hence there does exist that Brahman which is full of joy
[•Taking the expression, rasavat, to mean “like a juice, i.e a sweet thing” (instead of “full of joy”), the concluding portion may be translated thus: “Brahman, which is the spring of their happiness just as a sweet thing is.”•]
and is the spring of their happiness.

इतश्चास्ति; कुतः? प्राणनादिक्रियादर्शनात्। अयमपि हि पिण्डो जीवतः प्राणेन प्राणिति अपानेन अपानिति। एवं वायवीया ऐन्द्रियकाश्च चेष्टाः संहतैः कार्यकरणैर्निर्वर्त्यमाना दृश्यन्ते।
Brahman exists because of this additional reason. Of which? Since such actions as exhaling are seen. This body, too, of a living being, exhales through that function of the vital force called prāṇa and inhales through that other called apāna. Thus are the body and senses, in their association, seen to perform their vital and organic functions.

तच्चैकार्थवृत्तित्वेन संहननं नान्तरेण चेतनमसंहतं संभवति, अन्यत्रादर्शनात्।
This coming into association for serving a common purpose is not possible unless there is a sentient being which is not a part of this conglomeration. For such is not the case anywhere else.
[•Building materials themselves, for instance, do not erect a structure. A house stands there because somebody built it and yet did not form a part of it.•]

तदाह – यत् यदि एषः आकाशे परमे व्योम्नि गुहायां निहित आनन्दो न स्यात् न भवेत्, को ह्मेव लोके अन्यात् अपानचेष्टां कुर्यादित्यर्थः। कः प्राण्यात् प्राणनं वा कुर्यात्;
That fact is being stated: yat, if; eṣaḥ ānandaḥ, this Bliss; na syāt, should not be there; ākāśe, in the (supreme) space that is lodged in the cavity of the heart; then in this world, kaḥ hi eva, who, indeed; anyāt, would inhale, i.e. perform the function of apāna; or kaḥ prāṇyāt, who would exhale, i.e. perform the function of prāṇa?

तस्मादस्ति तद्ब्रह्म, यदर्थाः कार्यकरणप्राणनादिचेष्टाः; तत्कृत एव च आनन्दो लोकस्य। कुतः? एष ह्येव पर आत्मा आनन्दयाति आनन्दयति सुखयति लोकं धर्मानुरूपम्।
Therefore that Brahman, for whose purpose there are such activities of the body and senses, as exhaling etc., does exist; and the happiness of people is caused by That itself. How? Eṣaḥ hi eva, this one, this supreme Self, indeed; ānandayāti (i.e. ānandayati), enlivens – people, in accordance with their merit.

स एवात्मा आनन्दरूपोऽविद्यया परिच्छिन्नो विभाव्यते प्राणिभिरित्यर्थः।
The idea is this: That very Self, which is Bliss by nature, is thought of as limited and diversified by people because of their ignorance.

भयाभयहेतुत्वाद्विद्वदविदुषोरस्ति तद्ब्रह्म। सद्वस्त्वाश्रयणेन हि अभयं भवति; नासद्वस्त्वाश्रयणेन भयनिवृत्तिरुपपद्यते।
That Brahman exists as the cause of fear and fearlessness of the men of ignorance and knowledge (respectively). For fearlessness comes as a result of taking refuge in something that exists, whereas fear cannot cease by resorting to some thing that does not exist.

कथमभयहेतुत्वमिति, उच्यते – यदा ह्येव यस्मात् एषः साधकः एतस्मिन् ब्रह्मणि –
How does Brahman become the cause of fearlessness? The answer is: Hi, since; yadā eva, at the very time; that eṣaḥ, this one – an aspirant; etasmin, in this one – in Brahman –.

किंविशिष्टे? अदृश्ये दृश्यं नाम द्रष्टव्यं विकारः, दर्शनार्थत्वाद्विकारस्य; न दृश्यम् अदृश्यम्, अविकार इत्यर्थः।
(In Brahman) of what kind? A-dṛśye: dṛśya is anything that is meant to be seen, that is to say, any modification; for a modification is meant to be perceived; what is not a dṛśya is a-dṛśya, i.e. changeless.

एतस्मिन्नदृश्ये अविकारेऽविषयभूते, अनात्म्ये अशरीरे, यस्माददृश्यं तस्मादनात्म्यम्,
In this a-dṛśye, changeless, that which is not an object of cognition. An-ātmye, in the unembodied. Since It is imperceptible, It is incorporeal.

यस्मादनात्म्यं तस्माद् अनिरुक्तम्; विशेषो हि निरुच्यते; विशेषश्च विकारः; अविकारं च ब्रह्म, सर्वविकारहेतुत्वात्; तस्मात् अनिरुक्तम्।
Since It is incorporeal, It is a-niruktam, inexpressible. Anything possessed of attributes can alone be expressed in words, and anything possessed of attributes is mutable, whereas Brahman is changeless, It being the source of all modifications. Hence, It is inexpressible.

यत एवम्, तस्माद् अनिलयनं निलयनं नीड आश्रयः न निलयनम् अनिलयनम् अनाधारं;
That being so, It is a-nilayanam: nilayana is a nest, refuge; a-nilayana is the opposite of that; It is without support.

तस्मिन् एतस्मिन् अदृश्येऽनात्म्येऽनिरुक्तेऽनिलयने सर्वकार्यधर्मविलक्षणे ब्रह्मणीति वाक्यार्थः।
The meaning of the sentence is: (When) in that entity which is this changeless, unembodied, inexpressible, unsustaining Brahman, which is distinct from all the attributes of a product –,

अभयम् इति क्रियाविशेषणम्। अभयामिति वा लिङ्गान्तरं परिणम्यते। प्रतिष्ठां स्थितिमात्मभावं विन्दते लभते।
(The aspirant) vindate, gets; pratiṣṭhām, stability, Self-absorption; a-bhayam, in a fearless way –. The word a-bhayam (fearlessly) is used adverbially (to modify the verb vindate, gets); or it has to be changed in gender to a-bhayām (fearless) to qualify the noun (pratiṣṭhām, stability).

अथ तदा सः तस्मिन्नानात्वस्य भयहेतोरविद्याकृतस्यादर्शनाद् अभयं गतो भवति
(When the aspirant gets this fearless stability in Brahman) atha, then; since he does not see diversity which is the creation of ignorance and the cause of fear, therefore, saḥ, he; a-bhayam gataḥ bhavati, becomes established in fearlessness.

स्वरूपप्रतिष्ठो ह्यसौ यदा भवति, तदा नान्यत्पश्यति नान्यच्छृणोति नान्यद्विजानाति। अन्यस्य ह्यन्यतो भयं भवति, न आत्मन एव आत्मनो भयं युक्तम्; तस्मात् आत्मैव आत्मनः अभयकारणम्। सर्वतो हि निर्भया ब्राह्मणा दृश्यन्ते सत्सु भयहेतुषु; तच्चायुक्तमसति भयत्राणे ब्रह्मणि।
When he becomes established in his true nature, then he does not see anything else, does not hear anything else, does not know anything else. Someone gets afraid of someone else, but it is not logical that the Self should be afraid of the Self. Hence the Self is the source of fearlessness for the Self. In spite of the existence of the cause of fear, there are Brāhmaṇas to be found who are indeed free of fear from all quarters. This would be unjustifiable if Brahman, the protector from fear were not there.

तस्मात्तेषामभयदर्शनादस्ति तदभयकारणं ब्रह्मेति।
Therefore, from the fact of noticing their fearlessness, it follows that Brahman exists as the source of that intrepidity.

कदा असौ अभयं गतो भवति साधकः? यदा नान्यत्पश्यति आत्मनि च अन्तरं भेदं न कुरुते, तदा अभयं गतो भवतीत्यभिप्रायः।
When does that aspirant reach fearlessness? When he does not perceive anything else and does not create any antaram, difference, in the Self, then he attains fearlessness. This is the idea.

यदा पुनरविद्यावस्थायां हि यस्मात् एषः अविद्यावान् अविद्यया प्रत्युपस्थापितं वस्तु तैमिरिकद्वितीयचन्द्रवत्पश्यत्यात्मनि च एतस्मिन् ब्रह्मणि, उद् अपि, अरम् अल्पम् अपि, अन्तरं छिद्रं भेददर्शनं कुरुते; भेददर्शनमेव हि भयकारणम्; अल्पमपि भेदं पश्यतीत्यर्थः।
On the contrary, hi, since; yadā, when, in the state of ignorance; eṣaḥ, this one, the ignorant man; sees in the Self something presented by nescience, like the vision of a second moon seen by a man suffering from the eye-disease called timira; and etasmin, in this, in Brahman; kurute, he perceives; ut aram, even a slight; antaram, hole, difference – since the perception of difference is the cause of fear,
[•Another reading is bheda-darśanam eva hi antara-karaṇam – “the seeing of difference itself is the creator of difference”.•]
it means that even if he sees the slightest difference –;

अथ तस्माद्भेददर्शनाद्धेतोः तस्य भेददर्शिनः आत्मनो भयं भवति। तस्मादात्मैवात्मनो भयकारणमविदुषः;
Atha, then, because of that seeing of difference; bhayam bhavati, fear crops up for this soul that perceives difference. So the Self alone is the cause of fear to the self in the case of an ignorant man.

तदेतदाह – तत् ब्रह्म तु एव भयं भेददर्शिनो विदुषः ईश्वरोऽन्यो मत्तः अहमन्यः संसारीत्येवंविदुषः भेददृष्टमीश्वराख्यं तदेव ब्रह्म अल्पमप्यन्तरं कुर्वतः भयं भवति एकत्वेन अमन्वानस्य
The Upaniṣad states that very fact here: Tu nevertheless; tat eva, that very Brahman; is bhayam, a terror; viduṣaḥ, to the man of (apparent) learning, who perceives difference; that very Brahman, when perceived through (a sense of) duality and called God, becomes a terror for the (apparently) learned man who knows thus, ‘God is different from me, and I am a worldly creature different from God’, and who creates the slightest difference. (It becomes a terror) a-manvānasya, for him who does not view from the stand point of unity.

तस्मात् विद्वानप्यविद्वानेवासौ, योऽयमेकमभिन्नमात्मतत्त्वं न पश्यति।
Accordingly, the man who does not realize the reality that is the Self, which is one and undifferentiated, is surely unenlightened, though he may be learned.

उच्छेदहेतुदर्शनाद्ध्युच्छेद्याभिमतस्य भयं भवति; अनुच्छेद्यो ह्युच्छेदहेतुः;
Anyone who considers oneself destructible becomes struck with fear at the very sight of a destructive agency. A destroyer. (in the ultimate analysis) can be so, only if it is itself indestructible.
[•The ultimate cause of fear must itself be indestructible, since a contrary supposition will lead to an infinite regress. And such an eternal agent is Brahman.•]

तत्र असत्युच्छेदहेतौ उच्छेद्ये न तद्दर्शनकार्यं भयं युक्तम्। सर्वं च जगद्भयवद्दृश्यते।
Now, if there be no cause of destruction, there should be no such fear in the destructible as issues from a perception of a destroyer. The whole world, however, is seen to be stricken with fear.

तस्माज्जगतो भयदर्शनाद्गम्यते – नूनं तदस्ति भयकारणमुच्छेदहेतुरनुच्छेद्यात्मकम्, यतो जगद्बिभेतीति।
Therefore, from the perceived fact of fear in the world, it follows that there does exist a terrifying thing which is by nature an indestructible agent of destruction, because of which the world shudders.

तत् एतस्मिन्न् अपि अर्थे एषः श्लोकः भवति

Expressive of this idea, too, there is this verse:

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


भीषा भयेन अस्मात् वातः पवतेभीषोदेति सूर्यःभीषा अस्मात् अग्निश्चेन्द्रश्चमृत्युर्धावति पञ्चम इति
Bhīṣā, through fear; asmāt, of Him; vātaḥ pavate, (the god of) Wind blows. Bhīṣā, through fear; udeti, rises; sūryaḥ, the Sun. Bhīṣā asmāt, through fear of Him; dhāvati, runs; agniḥ ca indraḥ ca, Fire as also Indra; (and) mṛtyuḥ pañcamaḥ, Death, the fifth.

वातादयो हि महार्हाः स्वयमीश्वराः सन्तः पवनादिकार्येष्वायासबहुलेषु नियताः प्रवर्तन्ते; तद्युक्तं प्रशास्तरि सति; यस्मात् नियमेन तेषां प्रवर्तनम्, तस्मादस्ति भयकारणं तेषां प्रशास्तृ ब्रह्म। यतस्ते भृत्या इव राज्ञः अस्मात् ब्रह्मणः भयेन प्रवर्तन्ते तच्च भयकारणमानन्दं ब्रह्म।
Since Wind etc., greatly adorable and lordly though they themselves are, engage regularly in such highly strenuous works as blowing, it is reasonable to conclude that this is possible on the supposition of a ruler different from them, because of whom they have their disciplined activity. Since they engage (in their duties) out of fear of this Brahman, just as servants do out of fear of a king, therefore, Brahman does exist as their ruler as a terrifying entity. And that Brahman, the source of fear, is Bliss.

तस्य अस्य ब्रह्मणः आनन्दस्य एषा मीमांसा विचारणा भवति
Eṣā bhavati, this (following) is; mīmāṃsā, an evaluation; ānandasya, of Bliss, of the aforesaid Brahman.

किमानन्दस्य मीमांस्यमिति, उच्यते – किमानन्दो विषयविषयिसंबन्धजनितः लौकिकानन्दवत्, आहोस्वित् स्वाभाविकः, इत्येवमेषा आनन्दस्य मीमांसा।
What is there to be assessed about Bliss? The answer is: Bliss can be studied thus from this point of view – whether It arises from the contact of subject and object, as is the case with worldly happiness, or whether It is natural.

तत्र लौकिक आनन्दो बाह्याध्यात्मिकसाधनसंपत्तिनिमित्त उत्कृष्टः। सः य एष निर्दिश्यते ब्रह्मानन्दानुगमार्थम्। अनेन हि प्रसिद्धेन आनन्देन व्यावृत्तविषयबुद्धिगम्य आनन्दोऽनुगन्तुं शक्यते।
As to that, the worldly bliss attains excellence owing to a concurrence of external and internal means. The bliss, thus attained, is being instanced here as an approach to the Bliss that is Brahman; for through this familiar bliss can be approached the Bliss that is comprehensible by an intellect free from objective thought.

लौकिकोऽप्यानन्दः ब्रह्मानन्दस्यैव मात्रा; अविद्यया तिरस्क्रियमाणे विज्ञाने उत्कृष्यमाणायां च अविद्यायां ब्रह्मादिभिः कर्मवशात् यथाविज्ञानं विषयादिसाधनसंबन्धवशाच्च विभाव्यमानश्च लोकेऽनवस्थितो लौकिकः संपद्यते;
Even worldly bliss is a particle of the Bliss that is Brahman, which becomes transmuted into impermanent worldly bliss, consequent on knowledge becoming covered up by ignorance, and ignorance becoming successively thicker according as the individuals, starting with Hiraṇya-garbha, think diversely of this Bliss under the impulsion of the result of their past actions and in conformity with their past contemplations, and under the influence of contact with accessories like objects etc.

स एव अविद्याकामकर्मापकर्षेण मनुष्यगन्धर्वाद्युत्तरोत्तरभूमिषु अकामहतविद्वच्छ्रोत्रियप्रत्यक्षो विभाव्यते शतगुणोत्तरोत्तरोत्कर्षेण यावद्धिरण्यगर्भस्य ब्रह्मण आनन्द इति।
That very Bliss which is visualized by one who is learned, versed in the Vedas and free from passion, appears diversely as increasing more and more – a hundredfold each time in the planes starting with that of man-Gandharvas till the bliss of Hiraṇya-garbha, Brahmā, is reached, in accordance with the attenuation of ignorance, desire and action.

निरस्ते त्वविद्याकृते विषयविषयिविभागे, विद्यया स्वाभाविकः परिपूर्णः एकः आनन्दः अद्वैतः भवतीत्येतमर्थं विभावयिष्यन्नाह –
But when the division of subject and object, created by ignorance is eliminated by enlightenment, there is only the intrinsic all pervading Bliss that is one without a second. In order to impart this idea, the text says:

युवा प्रथमवयाः; साधुयुवा इति साधुश्चासौ युवा चेति यूनो विशेषणम्; युवाप्यसाधुर्भवति साधुरप्ययुवा, अतो विशेषणं युवा स्यात्साधुयुवेति;
Yuvā, a youth (yuvan) – one in the prime of life. Sādhu-yuvā is an adjective of the youth, and means one who is both young and good. Even a youth may he bad, and even a good man may not be young. Hence the specification, ‘Suppose there is a young man who is a good youth.’

अध्यायकः अधीतवेदः। आशिष्ठः आशास्तृतमः; दृढिष्ठः दृढतमः; बलिष्ठः बलवत्तमः; एवमाध्यात्मिकसाधनसंपन्नः।
Adhyāyakaḥ is one who has studied the Vedas. Āśiṣṭhaḥ, the best ruler (or, ‘the quickest in action’). Dṛḍhiṣṭhaḥ, most hardy (i.e. having all the senses intact). Baliṣṭhaḥ, strongest. (Suppose the youth is) blessed with such physical accessories.

तस्येयं पृथिवी उर्वी सर्वा वित्तस्य वित्तेनोपभोगसाधनेन दृष्टार्थेनादृष्टार्थेन च कर्मसाधनेन संपन्ना पूर्णा राजा पृथिवीपतिरित्यर्थः।
(And let there be) tasya, for him; iyam sarvā pṛthivī, this whole earth; pūrṇā, filled; vittasya, (should rather be vittena), with wealth meant for enjoyment, and with the means of karmas leading to seen and unseen results. The idea is that he is a king ruling over the earth.

तस्य च य आनन्दः, सः एकः मानुषः मनुष्याणां प्रकृष्टः एक आनन्दः
Saḥ, the joy that he has; is ekaḥ mānuṣaḥ ānandaḥ, a single human bliss, one unit of the highest human bliss.

ते ये शतं मानुषा आनन्दाः
Te ye śatam mānuṣāḥ ānandāḥ, that human bliss multiplied a hundredfold; is –

स एको मनुष्यगन्धर्वाणाम् आनन्दः; मानुषानन्दात् शतगुणेनोत्कृष्टः मनुष्यगन्धर्वाणामानन्दः भवति।
Saḥ ekaḥ manuṣya-gandharvāṇām ānandaḥ one unit of the bliss of (one individual of) the man-Gandharvas. The happiness of man-Gandharvas becomes a hundred times better than that of man.

मनुष्याः सन्तः कर्मविद्याविशेषात् गन्धर्वत्वं प्राप्ता मनुष्यगन्धर्वाः। ते ह्यन्तर्धानादिशक्तिसंपन्नाः सूक्ष्मकार्यकरणाः; तस्मात्प्रतिघाताल्पत्वं तेषां द्वन्द्वप्रतिघातशक्तिसाधनसंपत्तिश्च।
Man-Gandharvas are those human beings who become Gandharvas through some special karmas and meditations. As they are possessed of the power of disappearance etc., being endowed with subtle bodies and senses, so obstacles in their way are few, and they are endowed with the power and means of resisting dualities (such as heat and cold, etc.).

ततः अप्रतिहन्यमानस्य प्रतीकारवतः मनुष्यगन्धर्वस्य स्याच्चित्तप्रसादः। तत्प्रसादविशेषात्सुखविशेषाभिव्यक्तिः।
Therefore, a man-Gandharva will have mental tranquillity inasmuch as he remains unopposed and can withstand duality. From that excellence of tranquillity follows an abundant expression of Bliss.

एवं पूर्वस्याः पूर्वस्या भूमेरुत्तरस्यामुत्तरस्यां भूमौ प्रसादविशेषतः शतगुणेन आनन्दोत्कर्ष उपपद्यते।
Thus it stands to reason that in proportion to the abundance of tranquillity on the succeeding planes as compared with that on the preceding ones, the excellence of bliss also progresses a hundredfold.

प्रथमं तु अकामहताग्रहणं मनुष्यविषयभोगकामानभिहतस्य श्रोत्रियस्य मनुष्यानन्दात् शतगुणेन आनन्दोत्कर्षः मनुष्यगन्धर्वेण तुल्यो वक्तव्य इत्येवमर्थम्।
However, the man free from desire (a-kāma-hata) has not been taken into consideration at the initial stage with a view to showing that the bliss of one, who observes Veda duties and is untouched by desire and enjoyment of human objects, is a hundred times higher than the human bliss and is comparable to that of a man-Gandharva.

साधुयुवा अध्यायक इति श्रोत्रियत्वावृजिनत्वे गृह्येते। ते ह्यविशिष्टे सर्वत्र।
Devotion to Veda duties and sinlessness (BrhUEng.4.3.33) are implied by the two terms ‘learned’ and ‘young and good’. These two qualities are, indeed, common to all (the planes).

अकामहतत्वं तु विषयोत्कर्षापकर्षतः सुखोत्कर्षापकर्षाय विशेष्यते।
But desirelessness (a-kāma-hatatvam) has been treated distinctively in order to point out that increase of bliss is independent of the superiority or inferiority of objects.

अतः अकामहतग्रहणम्, तद्विशेषतः शतगुणसुखोत्कर्षोपलब्धेः अकामहतत्वस्य परमानन्दप्राप्तिसाधनत्वविधानार्थम्।
Thus since happiness is seen to improve a hundredfold proportionately with the advance of desirelessness, it is treated here with a view to enjoining dispassionateness as a means for the attainment of supreme Bliss.

The rest has been already explained.

देवगन्धर्वा जातित एव।
Deva-Gandharvāḥ, the divine-Gandharvas, are so from their very birth.

चिरलोकलोकानाम् इति पितॄणां विशेषणम्। चिरकालस्थायी लोको येषां पितॄणाम्, ते चिरलोकलोका इति।
The term cira-loka-lokānām, of those whose world lasts for ever, is an adjective of pitṝṇām, of the manes, the manes being so qualified since their world lasts (relatively) for ever.

आजान इति देवलोकः तस्मिन्नाजाने जाता आजानजा देवाः, स्मार्तकर्मविशेषतो देवस्थानेषु जाताः।
Ājāna is the world of the gods; those who are born there – born in the regions of gods as a result of special rites prescribed by the Smṛtis – are the Ājāna-ja-gods.

कर्मदेवा ये वैदिकेन कर्मणा अग्निहोत्रादिना केवलेन देवानपियन्ति।
The karma-devāḥ are those who reach the gods by mere Veda Karma, such as Agnihotra etc.

देवा इति त्रयस्त्रिंशद्धविर्भुजः;
The devāḥ, gods, are those who are thirty-three in numbers
[•Eight Vasus, eleven Rudras, twelve Ādityas, Indra, and Prajā-pati.•]
and receive oblations.

इन्द्रः तेषां स्वामी;
Indra is their lord.

तस्य आचार्यो बृहस्पतिः
His preceptor is Bṛhas-pati.

प्रजापतिः विराट् त्रैलोक्यशरीरः
Prajā-pati is Virāṭ who has the three worlds (earth, heaven, and intermediate space) as his body.
[•Commentary on BrhUEng.3.3.2.•]

ब्रह्मा समष्टिव्यष्टिरूपः संसारमण्डलव्यापी। यत्रैते आनन्दभेदा एकतां गच्छन्ति, धर्मश्च तन्निमित्तः ज्ञानं च तद्विषयम् अकामहतत्वं च निरतिशयं यत्र, स एष हिरण्यगर्भो ब्रह्मा,
Brahmā pervades the whole universe in the form of the cosmic and individual persons. This Brahmā is Hiraṇya-garbha in whom all these varieties of bliss become unified, and in whom resides virtue which is the cause of that bliss, consciousness of that bliss, and dispassionateness of the highest order.

तस्यैष आनन्दः श्रोत्रियेण अवृजिनेन अकामहतेन च सर्वतः प्रत्यक्षमुपलभ्यते।
This bliss of His is directly experienced everywhere by one who is versed in the Vedas, free from sin and unsullied by desire.

तस्मादेतानि त्रीणि साधनानीत्यवगम्यते। तत्र श्रोत्रियत्वावृजिनत्वे नियते अकामहतत्वं तु उत्कृष्यत इति प्रकृष्टसाधनता अवगम्यते।
Hence it is understood that these three qualities are the means (for the attainment of Bliss). Of these, Veda learning and sinlessness are invariable (in all the planes), whereas desirelessness increases; and hence the last is known to be the best means.

तस्य अकामहतत्वप्रकर्षतश्चोपलभ्यमानः श्रोत्रियप्रत्यक्षो ब्रह्मण आनन्दः यस्य परमानन्दस्य मात्रा एकदेशः, ‘एतस्यैवानन्दस्यान्यानि भूतानि मात्रामुपजीवन्ति’ (BrhU.4.3.32) इति श्रुत्यन्तरात्।
The bliss of Brahmā, experienced on the perfection of desirelessness and also open to the direct vision of one who follows the Vedas, is a particle or bit of the supreme Bliss, in accordance with the Veda text, ‘On a particle of this very Bliss other beings live’ (BrhUEng.4.3.32).

स एष आनन्दः – यस्य मात्रा समुद्रांभस इव विप्रुषः प्रविभक्ताः यत्रैकतां गताः – स एष परमानन्दः स्वाभाविकः, अद्वैतात्; आनन्दानन्दिनोश्च अविभागोऽत्र॥

This bliss (of Brahmā and others) is a particle of that Supreme Bliss that is natural, from which it has separated like spray from the sea and into which it merges again. In It (the Supreme Bliss) there is no bifurcation of the joy and the enjoyer, since It is non-dual.

तदेतन्मीमांसाफलमुपसंह्रियते –
The result of this evaluation is being concluded here:
स यश्चायं पुरुष इति। यः गुहायां निहितः परमे व्योम्नि आकाशादिकार्यं सृष्ट्वा अन्नमयान्तम्, तदेवानुप्रविष्टः, सः ‘य’ इति निश्चीयते।
He who, after projecting all the creation – beginning with space and ending with the body made of the essence of food entered into it and is lodged in the supreme space within the cavity of the heart, is here indicated by the words saḥ yaḥ, He who.

कोऽसौ? अयं पुरुषेयश्चासावादित्ये यः परमानन्दः श्रोत्रियप्रत्यक्षो निर्दिष्टः, यस्यैकदेशं ब्रह्मादीनि भूतानि सुखार्हाण्युपजीवन्ति, सः यश्चासावादित्ये इति निर्दिश्यते।
Who is He? Ayam puruṣe yaḥ ca asau āditye, He who is in the human person, and He who resides in the sun. The supreme Bliss, that has been indicated as directly perceptible to the follower of the Vedas, and on a particle of which subsist all the beings worthy of joy – counting from Brahmā –, that supreme Bliss is being described as ‘He who resides in the sun’.

स एकः भिन्नप्रदेशघटाकाशाकाशैकत्ववत्।
Saḥ ekaḥ, He is one in the same sense that the space in a pot, standing separately, is one with space (as such).

ननु तन्निर्देशे स यश्चायं पुरुष इत्यविशेषतोऽध्यात्मं न युक्तो निर्देशः; यश्चायं दक्षिणेऽक्षन्निति तु युक्तः, प्रसिद्धत्वात्।
Objection: In the matter of describing that Bliss, the corporeal soul should not be referred to in general terms by saying, ‘He that is in the human person’; rather it is proper to indicate that soul by saying, ‘And He that is in the right eye’ (BrhUEng.2.3.5, 4.2.2, 5.5.2), that being better known.

न, पराधिकारात्।
Answer: No, for the discussion is here about the supreme Self.
[•The other text, quoted above, refers to a meditation based on the identity of the individual soul and Hiraṇya-garbha, and not the identity, as such, of the individual self and the supreme Self.•]

परो ह्यात्मा अत्र अधिकृतः ‘अदृश्येऽनात्म्ये’ ‘भीषास्माद्वातः पवते’ ‘सैषानन्दस्य मीमांसा’ इति। न हि अकस्मादप्रकृतो युक्तो निर्देष्टुम्;
The supreme Self certainly forms the subject matter here in the texts, ‘In the unperceivable, bodiless’ (TaitU.2.7.1), ‘Out of His fear the Wind blows’ (TaitU.2.8.1), ‘This, then, is an evaluation of that Bliss’ (Ibid). It is not reasonable to refer suddenly to something out of context.

परमात्मविज्ञानं च विवक्षितम्।
And the subject sought to be taught is the knowledge of the supreme Self.
[•“The same unsurpassing Bliss of the conscious Reality that is reflected on a superior medium, viz the sun, is also reflected on an inferior medium, viz a human being possessing head, hands, etc. Thus, from the standpoint of supreme Bliss, the two distinct entities are on a par, and intrinsically they are the same. This is what is taught.”—A.G.•]

तस्मात् पर एव निर्दिश्यते – स एक इति।
Therefore, it is verily the supreme Self that is referred to in the expression, saḥ ekaḥ, He is one.

नन्वानन्दस्य मीमांसा प्रकृता; तस्या अपि फलमुपसंहर्तव्यम्। अभिन्नः स्वाभाविकः आनन्दः परमात्मैव, न विषयविषयिसंबन्धजनित इति।
Objection: Is not the topic started with an estimation of Bliss? The result of that estimation, too, has to be concluded by saying: ‘The Bliss that is non-different and intrinsic, and not a product of the contact between the subject and the object, is the supreme Self.’

ननु तदनुरूप एव अयं निर्देशः – ‘स यश्चायं पुरुषे यश्चासावादित्ये स एकः’ इति भिन्नाधिकरणस्थविशेषोपमर्देन।
Counter-objection: Is not this indication (of the Self) by eliminating the distinctions pertaining to the different loci, which we come across here in the sentence, ‘He that is here in the human person, and He that is there in the sun, are one’ quite in line with that?

Objection: Even so, is it not useless to single out the sun?

न अनर्थकम्, उत्कर्षापकर्षापोहार्थत्वात्। द्वैतस्य हि यो मूर्तामूर्तलक्षणस्य पर उत्कर्षः सवित्रभ्यन्तर्गतः स चेत्पुरुषगतविशेषोपमर्देन परमानन्दमपेक्ष्य समो भवति, न कश्चिदुत्कर्षोऽपकर्षो वा तां गतिं गतस्येत्यभयं प्रतिष्ठां विन्दत इत्युपपन्नम्।
Answer: No, it is not useless, because it is meant for obviating (notions of) superiority and inferiority. In the sun is found the highest perfection of duality, consisting of the formed and the formless. If, from the standpoint of the supreme Bliss, that perfection can be placed on the same footing with the human personality, after eliminating the peculiarities of the latter, there will remain no superiority or inferiority for one who attains that goal; and hence it becomes reasonable to say that ‘he reaches a state of fearlessness’ (TaitU.2.7.1).

अस्ति नास्तीत्यनुप्रश्नो व्याख्यातः।
The question as to whether Brahman exists or not, raised after the teacher’s instruction, has been dealt with.

कार्यरसलाभप्राणनाभयप्रतिष्ठाभयदर्शनोपपत्तिभ्योऽस्त्येव तदाकाशादिकारणं ब्रह्मेत्यपाकृतः अनुप्रश्न एकः;
One of these post-questions has been dismissed by saying that from the reasonings which justify the phenomena of creation, acquisition of joy, functioning of life, reaching a state of fearlessness, and experience of fear, it follows that Brahman does exist as the cause of those space etc.

द्वावन्यानुप्रश्नौ विद्वदविदुषोर्ब्रह्मप्राप्त्यप्राप्तिविषयौ;
There are two other post-questions relating to the attainment or non-attainment of Brahman by the enlightened man and the unenlightened man.

तत्र विद्वान्समश्नुते न समश्नुत इत्यनुप्रश्नोऽन्त्यः; तदपाकरणायोच्यते। मध्यमोऽनुप्रश्नः अन्त्यापाकरणादेव अपाकृत इति तदपाकरणाय न यत्यते।
Of these, the last post-question is, ‘Does the enlightened man attain or does he not?’ In order to settle this, it is being said (as below). The middle post-question is settled by the answer to the last one; and hence no (separate) effort is made for solving it.

स यः कश्चित् एवं यथोक्तं ब्रह्म उत्सृज्योत्कर्षापकर्षमद्वैतं सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तमस्मीत्येवं वेत्तीति एवंवित्; एवंशब्दस्य प्रकृतपरामर्शार्थत्वात्।
Saḥ yaḥ, anyone who; is evam-vit, a knower of this kind; who, having discarded all ideas of superiority and inferiority, knows Brahman, described earlier, evam, in this manner, ‘I am the non-dual truth, knowledge, infinity’; – for the word, ‘evam, thus’, is used for alluding to some topic already mooted –;

स किम्? अस्माल्लोकात् प्रेत्य दृष्टादृष्टेष्टविषयसमुदायो हि अयं लोकः, तस्माद् अस्माल्लोकात् प्रेत्य प्रत्यावृत्य निरपेक्षो भूत्वा
What does he become? – he, pretya, (lit. after departing), desisting, without expecting anything; asmāt lokāt, from this world – the totality of things seen and unseen is verily indicated by the term ‘this world’; without expecting anything from that world –;

एतं यथाव्याख्यातम् अन्नमयम् आत्मानम् उपसंक्रामति
Upasaṅkrāmati, attains; etam annamayam ātmānam, this body built up by food, as explained already.

विषयजातमन्नमयात्पिण्डात्मनो व्यतिरिक्तं न पश्यति, सर्वं स्थूलभूतमन्नमयमात्मानं पश्यतीत्यर्थः।
The idea is that he does not perceive the totality of objects as different from the self, i.e. the body, built up by food; he sees all the gross elements as identical with the self built up by food (annamayam ātmānam).
[•He attains identity with Virāṭ, the gross Cosmic Person, whose body is constituted by the three worlds – earth, heaven, and intermediate space.•]

ततः अभ्यन्तरमेतं प्राणमयं सर्वान्नमयात्मस्थमविभक्तम्।
Then he attains etam prāṇamayam ātmānam, this body constituted by the vital force, which is itself undivided and is inside the (cosmic) body built up by all the food.

अथैतं मनोमयं विज्ञानमयम् आनन्दमयम् आत्मानम् उपसंक्रामति
Then he attains this body made of mind (manomayam ātmānam), the body made of intelligence (vijñānamayam ātmānam),
[•Hiraṇya-garbha, conceived of as possessing the powers of action, will, and knowledge, has a subtle body constituted by the totality of vital, mental, and intellectual energy.•]
the body made of bliss (ānandamayam ātmānam).

अथादृश्येऽनात्म्येऽनिरुक्तेऽनिलयनेऽभयं प्रतिष्ठां विन्दत।
Then he reaches the state of fearlessness in the unperceivable, bodiless, inexpressible, and unsupporting (Self) (TaitU.2.7.1).

तत्रैतच्चिन्त्यम् – कोऽयमेवंवित्, कथं वा संक्रामतीति;
With regard to that, this has got to be considered: What is he who knows thus, and how does he attain?

किं परस्मादात्मनोऽन्यः संक्रमणकर्ता प्रविभक्तः, उत स एवेति। किं ततः?
Is the attainer different from or the same as the supreme Self? What follows from that?

यद्यन्यः स्यात्, श्रुतिविरोधः – ‘तत्सृष्ट्वा तदेवानुप्राविशत्’ (TaitU.2.6.1) ‘अन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति। न स वेद’ (BrhU.1.4.10) ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (ChanU.6.21.1) ‘तत्त्वमसि’ (ChanU.6.8.7 – 16.3) इति।
Should the attainer be different, the conclusion will run counter to such Veda texts as ‘Having created that, He entered into that very thing’ (TaitU.2.6.1), ‘(One who worships another god thinking), "He is one, I am another", he does not know’ (BrhUEng.1.4.10), ‘One only, without a second’ (ChanU.6.21.1), and ‘Thou art that’ (ChanU.6.8.7 – 16.3).

अथ स एव आनन्दमयमात्मानमुपसंक्रामतीति, कर्मकर्तृत्वानुपपत्तिः। परस्यैव च संसारित्वं पराभावो वा।
On the contrary, if the Self Itself attains the blissful self (ānandamayam ātmānam), we shall be faced with the unsoundness of the same entity being both subject and object; moreover, the supreme Self will either be reduced to a transmigratory soul or a nonentity.

यद्युभयथा प्राप्तो दोषो न परिहर्तुं शक्यत इति, व्यर्था चिन्ता।
Objection: The discussion is useless if the fault that arises on either assumption be unavoidable.

अथ अन्यतरस्मिन्पक्षे दोषाप्राप्तिः तृतीये वा पक्षे अदुष्टे, स एव शास्त्रार्थ इति व्यर्थैव चिन्ता;
On the other hand, if either of the assumptions is free from defect, or if a third flawless assumption is so, then that alone is the meaning of the scripture, and hence that the discussion is uncalled for.

न, तन्निर्धारणार्थत्वात्। सत्यं प्राप्तो दोषो न शक्यः परिहर्तुमन्यतरस्मिन् तृतीये वा पक्षे अदुष्टे अवधृते व्यर्था चिन्ता स्यात्; न तु सोऽवधृत इति तदवधारणार्थत्वादर्थवत्येवैषा चिन्ता।
Answer: No, for the discussion is meant for its ascertainment. True it is that the accruing defect cannot be avoided by accepting either of the two positions, and that the discussion becomes useless if a third flawless position is ascertained; but that third alternative has not been determined. Hence this consideration is fruitful as it is calculated to lead to that ascertainment.

सत्यमर्थवती चिन्ता, शास्त्रार्थावधारणार्थत्वात्। चिन्तयसि च त्वम्, न तु निर्णेष्यसि;
Objection: True it is that an investigation is fruitful so far as it culminates in the fixing of the meaning of a scripture. But in your case, you will simply cogitate without ever hitting upon any meaning.

किं न निर्णेतव्यमिति वेदवचनम्?
Answer: Is it your view that there can occur any Veda sentence whose meaning need not be determined?

Objection: No.

कथं तर्हि?
Counter-objection: How then (is the discussion useless)?

बहुप्रतिपक्षत्वात्; एकत्ववादी त्वम्, वेदार्थपरत्वात्; बहवो हि नानात्ववादिनो वेदबाह्याः त्वत्प्रतिपक्षाः; अतो ममाशङ्का – न निर्णेष्यसीति।
Objection: Because there are many opponents. You are a monist, since you follow the Veda ideas, while the dualists are many who are outside the Veda pale and who are opposed to you. Therefore I apprehend that you will not be able to determine.

एतदेव मे स्वस्त्ययनम् – यन्मामेकयोगिनमनेकयोगिबहुप्रतिपक्षमात्थ। अतो जेष्यामि सर्वान्; आरभे च चिन्ताम्।
Answer: This itself is a blessing for me that you brand me as sworn to monism and faced by many who are wedded to plurality. Therefore I shall conquer all; and so I begin the discussion.

स एव तु स्यात्, तद्भावस्य विवक्षितत्वात्। तद्विज्ञानेन परमात्मभावो हि अत्र विवक्षितः – ‘ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम्’ इति। न हि अन्यस्य अन्यभावापत्तिरुपपद्यते।
The attainer must be the supreme Self alone, inasmuch as merger into that state is the idea implied. What is sought to be imparted here in the text, ‘The knower of Brahman attains the highest’ (TaitU.2.1.1), is becoming the supreme Self through Its knowledge. Surely, it is not possible that one thing can become something else.

ननु तस्यापि तद्भावापत्तिरनुपपन्नैव।
Objection: Is it not also unsound to say that the individual soul becomes the supreme Self?

न, अविद्याकृतानात्मापोहार्थत्वात्। या हि ब्रह्मविद्यया स्वात्मप्राप्तिरुपदिश्यते, सा अविद्याकृतस्य अन्नादिविशेषात्मनः आत्मत्वेनाध्यारोपितस्य अनात्मनः अपोहार्था।
Answer: No, for the idea conveyed is that of removal of the identity (with the body etc.) created by ignorance. The attainment of one’s own Self through the knowledge of Brahman, that is taught, is meant for the elimination of the distinct selves – such as the food-self, the products of nescience – which are really non-Selves, superimposed as Selves.

कथमेवमर्थता अवगम्यते?
Objection: How is such a meaning understood?

विद्यामात्रोपदेशात्। विद्यायाश्च दृष्टं कार्यमविद्यानिवृत्तिः; तच्चेह विद्यामात्रमात्मप्राप्तौ साधनमुपदिश्यते।
Answer: Because knowledge alone is prescribed. The effect of knowledge is seen to be the eradication of ignorance; and here that knowledge alone is prescribed as the means for the attainment of the Self.

मार्गविज्ञानोपदेशवदिति चेत्, तदात्मत्वे विद्यामात्रसाधनोपदेशोऽहेतुः।
Objection: May not that be like the communicating of information about a path? So the mere prescription of knowledge as a means does not amount to showing that the supreme Self is the Self of the attainer.

Counter-objection: Why?

देशान्तरप्राप्तौ मार्गविज्ञानोपदेशदर्शनात्। न हि ग्राम एव गन्तेति चेत्,
Opponent: For it is seen that, in the matter of reaching a different place, the information about the way is communicated. Not that the village itself can be the goer.
[•The traveller is not the village, though the knowledge of the path to the village is valuable to him. Similarly, the individual is not Brahman, though the instruction about knowledge of Brahman is valuable; for by practising it he can reach Brahman.•]

न; वैधर्म्यात्। तत्र हि ग्रामविषयं नोपदिश्यते, तत्प्राप्तिमार्गविषयमेवोपदिश्यते विज्ञानम्;
Answer: Not so, for the analogy is inept.
[•One does not say, “You are the village”, when talking about the path leading to it, whereas the identity of the two is taught here explicitly.•]
In the illustration cited, the information imparted is not of the village, but the knowledge imparted there is only of the path, leading to one’s arrival there.

न तथेह ब्रह्मविज्ञानव्यतिरेकेण साधनान्तरविषयं विज्ञानमुपदिश्यते।
But in this case, no information about any other means apart from the knowledge of Brahman is imparted.

उक्तकर्मादिसाधनापेक्षं ब्रह्मविज्ञानं परप्राप्तौ साधनमुपदिश्यत इति चेत्,
Objection: The knowledge of Brahman, as depending on such means as rites etc. enjoined earlier, is taught as a means for the attainment of the highest.

न; नित्यत्वान्मोक्षस्येत्यादिना प्रत्युक्तत्वात्।
Answer: No, for this was refuted earlier by saying, ‘Since liberation is eternal,’ etc.
[•Brahman is identical with liberation, and as such, It is not to be attained. But we can know Brahman in the sense that our ignorance about It can be removed.•]

श्रुतिश्च ‘तत्सृष्ट्वा तदेवानुप्राविशत्’ इति कार्यस्य तदात्मत्वं दर्शयति।
And the text, ‘Having created that, He entered into that very thing’ (, shows that the Self, immanent in creation, is identical with That (Supreme Brahman).

अभयप्रतिष्ठोपपत्तेश्च। यदि हि विद्यावान् स्वात्मनोऽन्यन्न पश्यति, ततः अभयं प्रतिष्ठां विन्दत इति स्यात्, भयहेतोः परस्य अन्यस्य अभावात्।
And this follows also from the logic of attaining the state of fearlessness. For if the man of enlightenment sees nothing as different from his own Self, then the statement, ‘He gets established in that state of fearlessness’, becomes appropriate, since (for him) nothing exists as a separate entity which can cause fear.

अन्यस्य च अविद्याकृतत्वे विद्यया अवस्तुत्वदर्शनोपपत्तिः; तद्धि द्वितीयस्य चन्द्रस्य असत्त्वम्, यदतैमिरिकेण चक्षुष्मता न गृह्यते
Moreover, if duality is a creation of nescience, then only is the realization of its insubstantiality through knowledge reasonable; for (the proof of) the non-existence of a second moon consists in its not being seen by one whose eyes are not affected by the disease called timira.

नैवं न गृह्यत इति चेत्,
Objection: But non-perception of duality is not thus a matter of experience.

न; सुषुप्तसमाहितयोरग्रहणात्।
Answer: No, for duality is not perceived by a person who is deeply asleep or absorbed in the Self.

सुषुप्तेऽग्रहणमन्यासक्तवदिति चेत्,
Objection: The non-perception of duality in deep sleep is comparable to the non-perception by one who is preoccupied with something else.

न; सर्वाग्रहणात्।
Answer: Not so, for then (i.e. in sleep and samadhi) there is nonperception of everything (so that there can be no preoccupation with anything).

जाग्रत्स्वप्नयोरन्यस्य ग्रहणात्सत्त्वमेवेति चेत्,
Objection: Duality has existence because of its perception in the dream and waking states.

न; अविद्याकृतत्वात् जाग्रत्स्वप्नयोः; यदन्यग्रहणं जाग्रत्स्वप्नयोः, तदविद्याकृतम्, विद्याभावे अभावात्।
Answer: No, for the dream and waking states are creations of ignorance. The perception of duality that occurs in the dream and waking states is the result of ignorance, because it ceases on the cessation of ignorance.

सुषुप्ते अग्रहणमपि अविद्याकृतमिति चेत्,
Objection: The non-perception (of duality) in sleep is also a result of ignorance.

न; स्वाभाविकत्वात्।
Answer: No, for it is intrinsic.

द्रव्यस्य हि तत्त्वमविक्रिया, परानपेक्षत्वात्;
The reality of a substance consists in its not being mutable, for it does not depend on anything else.

विक्रिया न तत्त्वम्, परापेक्षत्वात्।
Mutability is not a reality, since that depends on other factors.

न हि कारकापेक्षं वस्तुनस्तत्त्वम्;
The reality of a substance surely cannot be dependent on external agencies.

सतो विशेषः कारकापेक्षः, विशेषश्च विक्रिया;
Any peculiarity that arises in an existing substance is a result of external agencies, and a peculiarity implies change.

जाग्रत्स्वप्नयोश्च ग्रहणं विशेषः। यद्धि यस्य नान्यापेक्षं स्वरूपम्, तत्तस्य तत्त्वम्; यदन्यापेक्षम्, न तत्तत्त्वम्; अन्याभावे अभावात्।
The perceptions occurring in the dream and waking states are but modal expressions, for the reality of a thing is that which exists in its own right, and the unreality is that which depends on others, inasmuch as it ceases with the cessation of others.

तस्मात् स्वाभाविकत्वात् जाग्रत्स्वप्नवत् न सुषुप्ते विशेषः।
Hence, unlike what happens in the dream and waking states, no modality occurs in deep sleep, for the non-perception in the latter state is natural.

येषां पुनरीश्वरो अन्य आत्मनः, कार्यं च अन्यत्, तेषां भयानिवृत्तिः, भयस्य अन्यनिमित्तत्वात्; सतश्च अन्यस्य आत्महानानुपपत्तिः। न च असत आत्मलाभः।
For those, however, for whom God is different from the self, and creation, too, is distinct, there is no elimination of fear, since fear is caused by something different. And, something different that is true, cannot have its reality annihilated, nor can a non-existent emerge into being.

सापेक्षस्य अन्यस्य भयहेतुत्वमिति चेत्,
Objection: Something external becomes the source of fear when it is supplemented by others.
[•God, in association with merits and demerits of creatures, causes fear. But the liberated man has no fear of God since he is free from merit etc.•]

न; तस्यापि तुल्यत्वात्। यद्धर्माद्यनुसहायीभूतं नित्यमनित्यं वा निमित्तमपेक्ष्य अन्यद्भयकारणं स्यात्, तस्यापि तथाभूतस्य आत्महानाभावात् भयानिवृत्तिः;
Answer: No, for that, too, stands on an equal footing. Because, that permanent or impermanent agency,
[•A-dṛṣṭa, unseen result, whose help God takes.•]
in the form of demerit etc., depending on which that something else (i.e. God) becomes the cause of fear for others, cannot have self-effacement by the very fact of what that agency (a-dṛṣṭa) is assumed to be;
[•This above view cannot be advanced either by the Sāṅkhyas or the Naiyāyikas; for the former do not believe that an existing demerit can be wholly annihilated; and the latter do not say that so long as demerit persists, its effect will be totally absent. A-dṛṣṭa also creates the same difficulty.•]

आत्महाने वा सदसतोरितरेतरापत्तौ सर्वत्र अनाश्वास एव।
Or should that have self extinction, the real and the unreal will become mutually convertible, so that nobody will have any faith in anything.

एकत्वपक्षे पुनः सनिमित्तस्य संसारस्य अविद्याकल्पितत्वाददोषः। तैमिरिकदृष्टस्य हि द्वितीयचन्द्रस्य न आत्मलाभो नाशो वा अस्ति।
From the standpoint of non-duality, however, that objection has no bearing, since the world along with its cause is a superimposition through ignorance. For a second moon, seen by a man afflicted by the eye-disease called timira, does not attain any reality, nor is it annihilated.

विद्याविद्ययोः तद्धर्मत्वमिति चेत्,
Objection: Knowledge and ignorance are qualities of the Self.
[•If knowledge removes ignorance, then both of them must be qualities of the soul, and the soul must be subject to mutation by their emergence or disappearance.•]

न; प्रत्यक्षत्वात्। विवेकाविवेकौ रूपादिवत् प्रत्यक्षावुपलभ्येते अन्तःकरणस्थौ। न हि रूपस्य प्रत्यक्षस्य सतो द्रष्ट्टधर्मत्वम्। अविद्या च स्वानुभवेन रूप्यते – मूढोऽहम् अविविक्तं मम विज्ञानम् इति।
Answer: Not so, for they are perceived. Discrimination (i.e. knowledge) and non-discrimination (i.e. ignorance) are directly perceived, like colour etc., as existing in the mind. Not that colour, perceived as an object, can be an attribute of the perceiver. And ignorance is ascertained by such forms of its perception as, ‘I am ignorant’, ‘My knowledge is indistinct’.

तथा विद्याविवेको अनुभूयते। उपदिशन्ति च अन्येभ्य आत्मनो विद्यां बुधाः। तथा च अन्ये अवधारयन्ति।
Similarly, the distinction of knowledge (from the Self) is perceived, and the enlightened people communicate the knowledge of the Self to others; and so, too, do others grasp it.

तस्मात् नामरूपपक्षस्यैव विद्याविद्ये नामरूपे च; न आत्मधर्मौ, ‘नामरूपयोर्निर्वहिता ते यदन्तरा तद्ब्रह्म’ (ChanU.8.14.1) इति श्रुत्यन्तरात्।
Accordingly, knowledge and ignorance are to be ranked with name and form; and name and form are not attributes of the Self,
[•“The beginningless and inscrutable nescience, dependent on pure Consciousness for its existence, gets transformed as the internal organ. That organ, again, gets modified in the form of real knowledge and error in accordance with the preponderance of its sāttvika or tāmasika qualities. The substance called Consciousness, when reflected on such an organ, is ether called enlightened or deluded. In reality Consciousness is neither enlightened nor unenlightened.”—A.G.•]
in accordance with another Veda text, ‘(That which is indeed called Space) is the manifester of name and form. That in which they two exist is Brahman’ (ChanU.8.14.1).

ते च पुनर्नामरूपे सवितर्यहोरात्रे इव कल्पिते; न परमार्थतो विद्यमाने।
And those name and form are imagined to exist in Brahman like night and day in the sun, though in reality they are not there.

अभेदे ‘एतमानन्दमयमात्मानमुपसंक्रामति’ (TaitU.2.8.5) इति कर्मकर्तृत्वानुपपत्तिरिति चेत्,
Objection: If (the Self and Brahman are) non-different, then there arises the absurdity of the same entity becoming the subject and object, as mentioned in the text, ‘He attains this self made of bliss’ (TaitU.2.8.5).

न; विज्ञानमात्रत्वात् संक्रमणस्य। न जलूकादिवत् संक्रमणमिहोपदिश्यते; किं तर्हि, विज्ञानमात्रं संक्रमणश्रुतेरर्थः।
Answer: Not so, for the attainment consists in mere enlightenment. The reaching taught here is no like that by a leech. How then? The text treating of attainment means merely realization.
[•“The blissful self is not the supreme Self, nor is there any saṅkramaṇa in the sense of entry. But what is meant here is the transcendence or negation of the blissful self, accepted falsely as the Self, through the realisation of Brahman, not as an object, but as identical with the Self.”—A.G.•]

ननु मुख्यमेव संक्रमणं श्रूयते – उपसंक्रामतीति इति चेत्,
Objection: Attainment in the literal sense is meant here by the expression upasaṅkrāmati.

न; अन्नमये अदर्शनात्। न हि अन्नमयमुपसंक्रामतः बाह्यादस्माल्लोकात् जलूकावत् संक्रमणं दृश्यते, अन्यथा वा।
Answer: Not so, for this is not seen in the case of the body made of food; for in the case one reaching the (cosmic) food-body (i.e. Virāṭ), one is not seen to reach out from this external world like a leech or in any other manner.

मनोमयस्य बहिर्निर्गतस्य विज्ञानमयस्य वा पुनः प्रत्यावृत्त्या आत्मसंक्रमणमिति चेत्,
Objection: (Attainment is possible in the sense that) the mental body or the intellectual body, when it has gone out (in dream etc.), can return to acquire its own natural state again.

न; स्वात्मनि क्रियाविरोधात्। अन्योऽन्नमयमन्यमुपसंक्रामतीति प्रकृत्य मनोमयो विज्ञानमयो वा स्वात्मानमेवोपसंक्रामतीति विरोधः स्यात्।
Answer: No, for there can be no action on one’s own Self. (Moreover), the topic raised (by you) was that somebody, different from the food-body reaches the food-body; to say now that either the mental body or the intellectual body reaches its own state involves a contradiction.

तथा न आनन्दमयस्य आत्मसंक्रमणमुपपद्यते।
Similarly, the reaching its own state by the blissful-self is not possible.
[•The opponent might say that the saṅkramaṇa, in the case of the blissful self, means the attainment of its natural composure after a sorrowful experience. But this also is open to the objection that this runs counter to the opponent’s line of argument, and the existence in one’s own nature is not an acquisition in the real sense.•]

तस्मात् न प्राप्तिः संक्रमणम्; नापि अन्नमयादीनामन्यतमकर्तृकं पारिशेष्यादन्नमयाद्यानन्दमयान्तात्मव्यतिरिक्तकर्तृकं ज्ञानमात्रं च संक्रमणमुपपद्यते।
Therefore, saṅkramaṇa does not mean acquisition, nor does it mean ‘reaching’ by anyone of them beginning with the food-body. As a last resort, saṅkramaṇa can reasonably consist only in the realization by some entity, other than the selves beginning with the food-self and ending with the blissful-self.

ज्ञानमात्रत्वे च आनन्दमयान्तःस्थस्यैव सर्वान्तरस्य आकाशाद्यन्नमयान्तं कार्यं सृष्ट्वा अनुप्रविष्टस्य हृदयगुहाभिसंबन्धादन्नमयादिषु अनात्मसु आत्मविभ्रमः संक्रमणात्मकविवेकविज्ञानोत्पत्त्या विनश्यति।
If saṅkramaṇa means realization alone, then through that saṅkramaṇa, i.e. through the rise of knowledge about the difference of the Self (from the non-Self), is removed from that all-pervasive Self – which verily resides within the blissful-self and has entered into creation after projecting all things counting from space to food – the error of thinking of the non-Selves such as the food-body as Itself, which (error) arises from Its association with the cavity of the heart.

तदेतस्मिन्नविद्याविभ्रमनाशे संक्रमणशब्द उपचर्यते; न हि अन्यथा सर्वगतस्य आत्मनः संक्रमणमुपपद्यते। वस्त्वन्तराभावाच्च।
The word saṅkramaṇa is used figuratively with regard to this eradication of error created by ignorance, for in no other way can the attainment of the all-pervading Self be justified. Moreover, there is no other thing (that can reach the Self).

न च स्वात्मन एव संक्रमणम्। न हि जलूका आत्मानमेव संक्रामति।
Besides, the attainment cannot be of oneself; for a leech does not reach itself.

तस्मात् सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्मेति यथोक्तलक्षणात्मप्रतिपत्त्यर्थमेव बहुभवनसर्गप्रवेशरसलाभाभयसंक्रमणादि परिकल्प्यते ब्रह्मणि सर्वव्यवहारविषये; न तु परमार्थतो निर्विकल्पे ब्रह्मणि कश्चिदपि विकल्प उपपद्यते।
Hence, it is with a view to realizing the Self, which has been defined above in the text, ‘Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinity’ (TaitU.2.1.1), that becoming many, entering into creation, acquisition of bliss, fearlessness, attainment, etc. have been attributed to Brahman conceived of as the basis of all empirical dealings; but with regard to the really transcendental Brahman, beyond all conditions, there can be no such ascription.

तमेतं निर्विकल्पमात्मानम् एवं क्रमेणोपसंक्रम्य विदित्वा न बिभेति कुतश्चन अभयं प्रतिष्ठां विन्दत इत्येतस्मिन्नर्थेऽपि एषः श्लोकः भवति। सर्वस्यैव अस्य प्रकरणस्य आनन्दवल्ल्यर्थस्य संक्षेपतः प्रकाशनाय एष मन्त्रो भवति॥

Tat api’, with regard to this also – with regard to the fact that by reaching, i.e. realizing, the unconditioned Self by stages in this way, one ceases to have any fear from anywhere, and one gets established in the state that is fearlessness –; eṣaḥ ślokaḥ bhavati, there occurs this verse. This verse stands for expressing briefly the meaning of the whole topic, the gist of this Part called the Brahma-Ānanda-vallī, the Part On Bliss.

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


यतः यस्मात् निर्विकल्पात् यथोक्तलक्षणात् अद्वयानन्दात् आत्मनः, वाचः अभिधानानि द्रव्यादिसविकल्पवस्तुविषयाणि वस्तुसामान्यान्निर्विकल्पे अद्वयेऽपि ब्रह्मणि प्रयोक्तृभिः प्रकाशनाय प्रयुज्यमानानि, अप्राप्य अप्रकाश्यैव निवर्तन्ते स्वसामर्थ्याद्धीयन्ते।
Yataḥ, that from which – from the Self, which is unconditioned, has the aforesaid definition, and is non-dual and Bliss; vācaḥ, words that stand for conditioned objects, (turn back). Though words are applied by their users even with regard to the unconditioned and non-dual Brahman, expecting to express It by taking for granted Its parity with other substances, still those words a-prāpya, without reaching, without expressing (that Brahman); nivartante, turn back, become despoiled of their power.

मन इति प्रत्ययो विज्ञानम्। तच्च, यत्राभिधानं प्रवृत्तमतीन्द्रियेऽप्यर्थे, तदर्थे च प्रवर्तते प्रकाशनाय। यत्र च विज्ञानम्, तत्र वाचः प्रवृत्तिः। तस्मात् सहैव वाङ्मनसयोः अभिधानप्रत्ययोः प्रवृत्तिः सर्वत्र।
The word manaḥ stands for a notion, a cognition. And as a word proceeds to anything, supersensuous though it be, conceptual knowledge also strives to encompass that thing for expressing it as well; and words, too, become active where there is knowledge. Hence words and ideas, speech and mind, move together everywhere.

तस्मात् ब्रह्मप्रकाशनाय सर्वथा प्रयोक्तृभिः प्रयुज्यमाना अपि वाचः यस्मादप्रत्ययविषयादनभिधेयाददृश्यादिविशेषणात् सह एव मनसा विज्ञानेन सर्वप्रकाशनसमर्थेन निवर्तन्ते,
Therefore, that Brahman which is beyond all concepts and all words, and which has such attributes as invisibility, from which words, though used by their utterers in all possible ways for expressing Brahman, return manasā saha, together with the mind – with conceptual knowledge that is able to express everything (else);

तं ब्रह्मण आनन्दं श्रोत्रियस्य अवृजिनस्य अकामहतस्य सर्वैषणाविनिर्मुक्तस्य आत्मभूतं विषयविषयिसंबन्धविनिर्मुक्तं स्वाभाविकं नित्यमविभक्तं परमानन्दं ब्रह्मणो विद्वान् यथोक्तेन विधिना न बिभेति कुतश्चन, निमित्ताभावात्।
The vidvān, one who has known, through the aforesaid process; the brahmaṇaḥ ānandam, Bliss of that Brahman the supreme Bliss of Brahman that is the Self of the follower of the Vedas, who is sinless, unaffected by desire, and wholly free from all craving, the Bliss that is free from the relation of subject and object, is natural, eternal, and indivisible; (the man of knowledge), having known that Bliss, na bibheti kutaścana iti, is not afraid of anything, for there remains no cause of fear.

न हि तस्माद्विदुषः अन्यद्वस्त्वन्तरमस्ति भिन्नं यतो बिभेति। अविद्यया यदा उदरमन्तरं कुरुते, अथ तस्य भयं भवतीति हि युक्तम्। विदुषश्च अविद्याकार्यस्य तैमिरिकदृष्टद्वितीयचन्द्रवत् नाशाद्भयनिमित्तस्य न बिभेति कुतश्चनेति युज्यते।
There certainly does not exist anything, distinct from that man of knowledge, of which he can be afraid; for it has been said that, when anyone creates the slightest difference (in this Brahman) through ignorance, then one is subject to fear (TaitU.2.7.1). But since for the enlightened man the cause of fear, which is the effect of ignorance, has been removed like the second moon seen by a man with diseased eyes, it is proper that he has no fear of anything.

मनोमये च उदाहृतः मन्त्रः, मनसो ब्रह्मविज्ञानसाधनत्वात्। तत्र ब्रह्मत्वमध्यारोप्य तत्स्तुत्यर्थं न बिभेति कदाचनेति भयमात्रं प्रतिषिद्धम्; इह अद्वैतविषये न बिभेति कुतश्चनेति भयनिमित्तमेव प्रतिषिध्यते।
This verse was quoted in the context of the mental-self as well, because the mind is an aid to the knowledge of Brahman. But there the idea of Brahman was superimposed on the mental-self, and then by saying by way of eulogy of that imaginary Brahman that ‘one is not subject to fear at any time’ (TaitU.2.4.1), fear alone was denied; but by saying, ‘he is not afraid of anything’, in the (present) context of the non-dual (Brahman), the cause itself of fear is negated,

नन्वस्ति भयनिमित्तं साध्वकरणं पापक्रिया च।
Objection: But causes of fear, viz omission of good deeds and commission of bad deeds, do persist (even in his case).

Answer: Not so.

Objection: How?

उच्यते – एतं यथोक्तमेवंविदम्, ह वाव इत्यवधारणार्थौ, न तपति नोद्वेजयति न संतापयति।
The answer is: (Such omission and commission) na tapati, do not worry or afflict; etam, such a man, who is a knower as aforesaid. Ha and vāva are particles implying emphasis.

कथं पुनः साध्वकरणं पापक्रिया च न तपतीति,
Objection: How, again, omission of virtue and commission of sin do not afflict (him)?

उच्यते – किं कस्मात् साधु शोभनं कर्म न अकरवं न कृतवानस्मि इति पश्चात्संतापो भवति आसन्ने मरणकाले; तथा किं कस्मात् पापं प्रतिषिद्धं कर्म अकरवं कृतवानस्मि इति च नरकपतनादिदुःखभयात् तापो भवति।
The answer is: When death approaches, remorse comes in the form – ‘Kim, why; na akaravam, did I not perform; sādhu, good deeds?’ Similarly, repentance in the form – ‘Kim, why; akaravam, I did; pāpam, prohibited things?’ – comes to him from fear of affliction in the form of falling into hell etc.

ते एते साध्वकरणपापक्रिये एवमेनं न तपतः, यथा अविद्वांसं तपतः।
These two – omission of the good and commission of the bad – do not torment this one, as they do the ignorant man.

कस्मात्पुनर्विद्वांसं न तपत इति,
Objection: Why, again, do they not afflict the enlightened man?

उच्यते – स य एवं विद्वान् एते साध्वसाधुनी तापहेतू इति आत्मानं स्पृणुते प्रीणाति बलयति वा,
The answer is: Saḥ yaḥ evam vidvān, he who knows (Brahman) thus; spṛṇute, delights or strengthens; ete ātmānam, these two – virtue and vice, the causes of grief – which are (really) the Self.

परमात्मभावेन उभे पश्यतीत्यर्थः।
The idea is that he considers both as identified with the supreme Self.

उभे पुण्यपापे हि यस्मात् एवम् एष विद्वान् एते आत्मानात्मरूपेणैव पुण्यपापे स्वेन विशेषरूपेण शून्ये कृत्वा आत्मानं स्पृणुत एव
Hi, since, he who, having divested both virtue and vice of their individual distinctions; has known ete ātmānam eva, these two as verily the Self; he ātmānam spṛṇute, strengthens the Self.

कः? य एवं वेद यथोक्तमद्वैतमानन्दं ब्रह्म वेद,
Who? Yaḥ evam veda, he that knows Brahman thus as non-dual and Bliss as described earlier.

तस्य आत्मभावेन दृष्टे पुण्यपापे निर्वीर्ये अतापके जन्मान्तरारंभके न भवतः।
Virtue and vice, seen by him as identified with the Self, become powerless and harmless, and they do not bring about rebirth.

इति इयम् एवं यथोक्ता अस्यां वल्ल्यां ब्रह्मविद्या उपनिषत्
Iti upaniṣat, this is the secret instruction this is the knowledge of Brahman, called Upaniṣad, which has been stated thus in this Part.

सर्वाभ्यः विद्याभ्यः परमरहस्यं दर्शितमित्यर्थः – परं श्रेयः अस्यां निषण्णमिति॥

The idea is that the most secret of all knowledge has been revealed; for in it is ingrained the highest consummation.

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

anu.3.01 anu.3.02 anu.3.03 anu.3.04 anu.3.05 anu.3.06 anu.3.07 anu.3.08 anu.3.09 anu.3.10

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


सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म आकाशादिकार्यमन्नमयान्तं सृष्ट्वा तदेवानुप्रविष्टं विशेषवदिवोपलभ्यमानं यस्मात्, तस्मात् सर्वकार्यविलक्षणम् अदृश्यादिधर्मकमेव आनन्दं तदेवाहमिति विजानीयात्, अनुप्रवेशस्य तदर्थत्वात्;
Since Brahman, that is truth, knowledge, and infinity, brought about this creation – starting with space and ending with the body made of food –, then It entered into it, and seems to be possessed of distinctions because of this fact of entry, therefore one should realize thus: ‘I am that very Brahman which is the Bliss that is distinct from all creation and is possessed of such characteristics as invisibility.’ For the (subject of) entry (of Brahman) is meant to imply this.

तस्यैवं विजानतः शुभाशुभे कर्मणी जन्मान्तरारंभके न भवतः इत्येवमानन्दवल्ल्यां विवक्षितोऽर्थः। परिसमाप्ता च ब्रह्मविद्या।
In the case of one who knows thus, good and bad deeds do not bring about rebirth. This was the idea intended to be conveyed in the Part On Bliss (Brahma-Ānanda-vallī, starting TaitU.2.1.1). The knowledge of Brahman, too, has been concluded.

अतः परं ब्रह्मविद्यासाधनं तपो वक्तव्यम्; अन्नादिविषयाणि च उपासनान्यनुक्तानीत्यतः इदमारभ्यते –

After this is to be taught concentration which is helpful to the knowledge of Brahman, as also such meditations with regard to food etc. which have not been dealt with so far. Therefore this Part begins.
आख्यायिका विद्यास्तुतये, प्रियाय पुत्राय पित्रोक्तेति – भृगुर्वै वारुणिः।
The story is meant to eulogize knowledge by showing that it was imparted to a dear son (Bhṛgu Vāruṇi), by a father –
[•As a valuable heritage out of affection.•]

वै-शब्दः प्रसिद्धानुस्मारकः, भृगुः इत्येवं नामा प्रसिद्धो अनुस्मार्यते, वारुणिः वरुणस्यापत्यम्।
The particle vai, alluding to a recognised fact, calls up to memory one who is well known by the name Bhṛgu, who is Vāruṇiḥ, the son of Varuṇa.

वारुणिःवरुणं पितरं ब्रह्म विजिज्ञासुः उपससार उपगतवान् – अधीहि भगवो ब्रह्म इति अनेन मन्त्रेण। अधीहि अध्यापय कथय।
Varuṇa’s son, becoming anxious to know Brahman, upasasāra, approached; his pitaram varuṇam, father Varuṇa; with, iti, this sacred formula (mantra): ‘Adhīhi bhagavaḥ brahma, teach (me) Brahman, 0 revered sir.’ Adhīhi means teach, tell.

स च पिता विधिवदुपसन्नाय तस्मै पुत्राय एतत् वचनं प्रोवाच – अन्नं प्राणं चक्षुः श्रोत्रम् मनो वाचम् इति। अन्नं शरीरं तदभ्यन्तरं च प्राणम् अत्तारम् अनन्तरमुपलब्धिसाधनानि चक्षुः श्रोत्रं मनो वाचम् इति एतानि ब्रह्मोपलब्धौ द्वाराण्युक्तवान्।
And tasmai, to him, who had approached in due form; the father, too, provāca, spoke; etat, this – this sentence: ‘Annam,’ etc. He spoke of annam, food, i.e. the body; of prāṇam, the vital force, which is within that body and which is the eater; and of the aids to cognition, viz cakṣuḥ, śrotram, manaḥ, vācam – eye, ear, mind, speech; he spoke of these as the doors to the realization of Brahman.
[•“These are doors in the sense that they are helpful in distinguishing the object aimed at. For it is from the fact of the impossibility of the activities of the body etc. continuing in any other way (than through the consciousness of the Self) that consciousness is distinguished from them as a separate entity.”—A.G.•]

उक्त्वा च द्वारभूतान्येतान्यन्नादीनि तं भृगुं होवाच ब्रह्मणो लक्षणम्।
And having spoken of food etc. as doors, he uvāca, told; the definition of Brahman, tam, to him, Bhṛgu.

किं तत्? यतः यस्मात् वा इमानि ब्रह्मादीनि स्तम्बपर्यन्तानि भूतानि जायन्ते, येन जातानि जीवन्ति प्राणान्धारयन्ति वर्धन्ते, विनाशकाले च यत् प्रयन्ति यद्ब्रह्म प्रतिगच्छन्ति, अभिसंविशन्ति तादात्म्यमेव प्रतिपद्यन्ते, उत्पत्तिस्थितिलयकालेषु यदात्मतां न जहति भूतानि,
What is that (definition)? Yataḥ vai, that from which, indeed; imāni bhūtāni, all these beings – starting with Brahmā and ending with a clump of grass; jāyante, take birth; jātāni, being born; yena jīvanti, that by which they live, grow; yat, that Brahman towards which; prayanti, they proceed; into which they abhisaṃviśanti, enter, become fully identified, at the time of their dissolution – that with which the beings do not lose their identity during the times of creation, existence, and dissolution.

तदेतद्ब्रह्मणो लक्षणम्, तद् ब्रह्म विजिज्ञासस्व विशेषेण ज्ञातुमिच्छस्व; यदेवंलक्षणं ब्रह्म तदन्नादिद्वारेण प्रतिपद्यस्वेत्यर्थः।
This, then, is the definition of Brahman. Vijijñāsasva, crave to know well; tat, that; brahma, Brahman. Realize, through the help of food etc., that Brahman which is defined thus – this is the idea.

श्रुत्यन्तरं च – ‘प्राणस्य प्राणमुत चक्षुषश्चक्षुरुत श्रोत्रस्य श्रोत्रमन्नस्यान्नं मनसो ये मनो विदुस्ते निचिक्युर्ब्रह्म पुराणमग्र्यम्’ (BrhU.4.4.18) इति ब्रह्मोपलब्धौ द्वाराण्येतानीति दर्शयति।
Another Veda text, too, shows that these are doors to the realization of Brahman: ‘Those who have known the Vital Force of the vital force, the Eye of the eye, the Ear of the ear, the Food of the food, and the Mind of the mind, have realized the ancient, primordial Brahman’ (BrhUEng.4.4.18).

भृगुः ब्रह्मोपलब्धिद्वाराणि ब्रह्मलक्षणं च श्रुत्वा पितुः, तपो ब्रह्मोपलब्धिसाधनत्वेन अतप्यत तप्तवान्।
Having heard from his father the doors to the realization of Brahman, as also the definition of Brahman, saḥ he, Bhṛgu; atapyata, practised; tapaḥ, (lit. austerity), concentration – as a means to the realization of Brahman.

कुतः पुनरनुपदिष्टस्यैव तपसः साधनत्वप्रतिपत्तिर्भृगोः?
Objection: How could Bhṛgu, again, accept tapas (concentration) as a means, since it was not taught to be so?

Answer: (He accepted this) because of the incompleteness of the instruction.

अन्नादिब्रह्मणः प्रतिपत्तौ द्वारं लक्षणं च यतो वा इमानि इत्याद्युक्तवान्। सावशेषं हि तत्, साक्षाद्ब्रह्मणोऽनिर्देशात्।
Varuṇa said that food etc. are the doors to the realization of Brahman, and that Its definition is, ‘That from which all these beings take birth,’ etc. That, indeed, is incomplete; for Brahman was not directly pointed out there.

अन्यथा हि स्वरूपेणैव ब्रह्म निर्देष्टव्यं जिज्ञासवे पुत्राय इदमित्थंरूपं ब्रह्म इति; न चैवं निरदिशत्;
Otherwise, Brahman, in Its true nature, should have been indicated by saying, ‘This Brahman is of this kind’, to the son who was desirous of knowing. Not that he indicated thus.

किं तर्हि, सावशेषमेवोक्तवान्। अतोऽवगम्यते नूनं साधनान्तरमप्यपेक्षते पिता ब्रह्मविज्ञानं प्रतीति।
How did he do then? He said in an incomplete manner. So it is to be understood that for the knowledge of Brahman the father certainly had some other discipline in view.

तपोविशेषप्रतिपत्तिस्तु सर्वसाधकतमत्वात्; सर्वेषां हि नियतसाध्यविषयाणां साधनानां तप एव साधकतमं साधनमिति हि प्रसिद्धं लोके।
As for singling out tapas (concentration), this is because it is the best discipline, for it is well known in the world that of all the means that are causally related with definite ends, concentration is the best.
[•From the father’s description of Brahman, Bhṛgu could not arrive at any non-composite, unitary conception of Brahman which ruled out all duality and which could not be analysed back into its component parts; for the description itself was soaked in plurality. Bhṛgu aimed at an irresolvable concept, and hence he went on revolving in his mind what he had heard. That was his tapas.•]

तस्मात् पित्रा अनुपदिष्टमपि ब्रह्मविज्ञानसाधनत्वेन तपः प्रतिपेदे भृगुः। तच्च तपो बाह्यान्तःकरणसमाधानम्,
So Bhṛgu accepted tapas as a means to the knowledge of Brahman though it was not taught by his father.

तद्द्वारकत्वाद्ब्रह्मप्रतिपत्तेः, ‘मनसश्चेन्द्रियाणां च ह्यैकाग्र्यं परमं तपः। तज्ज्यायः सर्वधर्मेभ्यः स धर्मः पर उच्यते’ इति स्मृतेः।
This tapas consists in the concentration of the outer and inner organs, for that forms the door to the knowledge of Brahman in accordance with the Smṛti, ‘The concentration of the mind and the senses is the highest tapas. Since it is higher than all the virtues, it is called the highest virtue’ (Mbh. Sa. 250.4).

स च तपस्तप्त्वा

And saḥ, he; tapaḥ taptvā, having practised concentration –.

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


अन्नं ब्रह्मेति व्यजानात् विज्ञातवान्। तद्धि यथोक्तलक्षणोपेतम्।
Vyajānāt, he knew; annam brahma iti, food as Brahman; for food is endowed with the aforesaid characteristics.

कथम्? अन्नाद्ध्येव खलु इमानि भूतानि जायन्तेअन्नेन जातानि जीवन्तिअन्नं प्रयन्त्यभिसंविशन्तीति। तस्माद् युक्तमन्नस्य ब्रह्मत्वमित्यभिप्रायः।
How? Hi, for; annāt, from food; khalu eva, indeed; imāni bhūtāni jāyante, these beings are born; jātāni jīvanti, having been born; they live annena, by food; and prayanti abhisaṃviśanti, they move towards and enter into; annam, food. Hence it is reasonable that food is Brahman. This is the idea.

स एवं तपस्तप्त्वा, अन्नं ब्रह्मेति विज्ञाय लक्षणेन उपपत्त्या च पुनरेव संशयमापन्नः वरुणं पितरमुपससारअधीहि भगवो ब्रह्मेति
He having practised concentration in this way, and tat vijñāya, having known that food as Brahman, from its characteristics as well as reasoning; varuṇam pitaram upasasāra, approached his father Varuṇa; punaḥ eva, over again, being under doubt; with, iti, this (formal request); ‘Adhīhi bhagavaḥ brahma, 0 revered sir, teach me Brahman.’

कः पुनः संशयहेतुरस्येति,
Objection: What was, again, the occasion for his doubt?

उच्यते – अन्नस्योत्पत्तिदर्शनात्।
The answer is: Because food is seen to have an origin.

तपसः पुनः पुनरुपदेशः साधनातिशयत्वावधारणार्थः। यावद्ब्रह्मणो लक्षणं निरतिशयं न भवति, यावच्च जिज्ञासा न निवर्तते, तावत्तप एव ते साधनम्; तपसा एव ब्रह्म विजिज्ञासस्व इत्यर्थः। ऋज्वन्यत्॥

Concentration is repeatedly inculcated in order to emphasise the fact of its being the best discipline. The idea is this: ‘Concentration alone is your discipline till the description of Brahman can be pushed no further and till your desire to know becomes quietened. Tapasā, through concentration alone, vijijñāsasva you crave to know Brahman.’ The rest is easy.

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


[•‘The rest is easy’ – Remember!•]

एवं तपसा विशुद्धात्मा प्राण-आदिषु साकल्येन ब्रह्मलक्षणमपश्यन् शनैः शनैः अन्तरनुप्रविश्य अन्तरतमम् आनन्दं ब्रह्म विज्ञातवान् तपसैव साधनेन भृगुः;
Thus becoming pure in mind through concentration and failing to find the definition of Brahman, in its fullness, in the selves composed of the prāṇa etc., Bhṛgu penetrated inside by degrees, and with the help of concentration alone realized the innermost Bliss that is Brahman.

तस्मात् ब्रह्म विजिज्ञासुना बाह्यान्तःकरणसमाधानलक्षणं परमं तपः साधनमनुष्ठेयमिति प्रकरणार्थः।
Therefore, the idea conveyed by this topic is that anyone who is desirous of knowing Brahman should undertake concentration of the internal and external organs as the most excellent practice of tapas (austerity).

अधुना आख्यायिकां च उपसंहृत्य श्रुतिः स्वेन वचनेन आख्यायिकानिर्वर्त्यमर्थमाचष्टे। सा एषा भार्गवी भृगुणा विदिता वरुणेन प्रोक्ता वारुणी विद्या परमे व्योमन् हृदयाकाशगुहायां परमे आनन्दे अद्वैते प्रतिष्ठिता परिसमाप्ता अन्नमयादात्मनोऽधिप्रवृत्ता।
Now, standing aside from the story, the Upaniṣad states the purport of the story in its own words: sā eṣā, this, then, is; the vidyā, knowledge; (which was) bhārgavī, realized by Bhṛgu; (and) vāruṇī, imparted by Varuṇa; (which) commencing from the self constituted by food, pratiṣṭhitā, culminates; in the supreme, non-dual Bliss that is lodged parame vyoman, in the cavity that is the supreme space within the heart.

य एवम् अन्योऽपि तपसैव साधनेन अनेनैव क्रमेण अनुप्रविश्य आनन्दं ब्रह्म वेद, एवं विद्याप्रतिष्ठानात् प्रतितिष्ठति आनन्दे परमे ब्रह्मणि, ब्रह्मैव भवतीत्यर्थः।
Yaḥ evam veda, anybody else, too, who realizes, the Bliss that is Brahman by entering through this very process and through concentration alone as his aid – saḥ, that man, too, in consequence of his knowledge culminating thus, pratitiṣṭhati, gets established in the Bliss that is the supreme Brahman; that is to say, he becomes Brahman Itself.

दृष्टं च फलं तस्योच्यते – अन्नवान् प्रभूतमन्नमयस्य विद्यत इत्यन्नवान्; सत्तामात्रेण तु सर्वो हि अन्नवानिति विद्याया विशेषो न स्यात्।
Moreover, a visible result is being vouchsafed for him: Annavān has to be taken in the sense of one who is possessed of plenty of food, since knowledge would get no credit if the term meant simply possession of food as such, for that is a patent fact in the case of everybody.

एवमन्नमत्तीति अन्नादः, दीप्ताग्निः भवति इत्यर्थः।
Similarly, anna-adaḥ, (derived in the sense of an eater of food), means that he is blessed with good digestion.

महान् भवति। केन महत्त्वमित्यत आह – प्रजया पुत्रादिना पशुभिः गवाश्वादिभिः ब्रह्मवर्चसेन शमदमज्ञानादिनिमित्तेन तेजसा। महान् भवति कीर्त्या ख्यात्या शुभाचारनिमित्तया॥

Mahān bhavati, he becomes great. In what does the greatness consist? The answer is: prajayā, in sons etc.; paśubhiḥ, in cows, horses, etc.; brahma-varcasena, in the lustre resulting from the control of external and internal organs, knowledge, etc. He becomes mahān, great; kīrtyā, through fame due to a virtuous life.

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


किं च, अन्नेन द्वारभूतेन ब्रह्म विज्ञातं यस्मात्, तस्मात् गुरुमिव अन्नं न निन्द्यात्; तत् अस्य एवं ब्रह्मविदो व्रतम् उपदिश्यते। व्रतोपदेशो अन्नस्तुतये, स्तुतिभाक्त्वं च अन्नस्य ब्रह्मोपलब्ध्युपायत्वात्।
Moreover, since Brahman is realized through the portal of food, na nindyāt, one should not deprecate; annam, food, just as one would not cavil at his teacher. (This is) tad vratam, a vow that is enjoined for him who knows Brahman thus. The inculcation of the vow is meant for the praise of food; and food is worthy of praise, since it is an aid to the realization of Brahman.

प्राणो वा अन्नम्, शरीरान्तर्भावात्प्राणस्य। यत् यस्यान्तः प्रतिष्ठितं भवति, तत्तस्यान्नं भवतीति। शरीरेप्राणः प्रतिष्ठितः, तस्मात् प्राणोऽन्नं शरीरम् अन्नादम्
Prāṇaḥ vai annam, the vital force is verily food, for the vital force is encased in the body. Anything that is encompassed by another becomes food of the latter; and śarīre prāṇaḥ pratiṣṭhitaḥ, the vital force is lodged in the body; therefore the vital force is food, and śarīram anna-adam, the body is the eater of food.

तथा शरीरमप्यन्नं प्राणोऽन्नादः। कस्मात्? प्राणे शरीरं प्रतिष्ठितम्। तन्निमित्तत्वाच्छरीरस्थितेः।
Similarly, the body, too, is food and the vital force is an eater. Why? Since prāṇe śarīram pratiṣṭhitam, the body is fixed on the vital force, the continuation of the body being dependent on the later.

तस्मात् तद् एतत् उभयं शरीरं प्राणश्च अन्नम् अन्नादश्च। येनान्योन्यस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठितं तेनान्नम्; येनान्योन्यस्य प्रतिष्ठा तेनान्नादः। तस्मात् प्राणः शरीरं च उभयमन्नमन्नादं च।
Tad, therefore (it is the case that) both of these two – etat, this body, and the vital force – are (mutually) food and the eater. In the aspect of their being lodged in each other, they are food; and in the aspect of being the support of each other they are eaters. Hence both the vital force and the body are food and the eater.

स य एवम् एतदन्नमन्ने प्रतिष्ठितं वेद प्रतितिष्ठति अन्नान्नादात्मनैव।
Saḥ yaḥ, he who; veda, knows: etat annam anne pratiṣṭhitam, this food as established on food; pratitiṣṭhati, becomes firmly established – in the very form of food and the eater.

किं च, अन्नवानन्नादो भवति इत्यादि पूर्ववत्॥

Moreover, he bhavati, becomes; annavān, a possessor of (plenty of) food; anna-adaḥ, an eater (i.e. a digester) of food. All these are to be explained as before.

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


अन्नं न परिचक्षीत न परिहरेत्। तद्व्रतं पूर्ववत्स्तुत्यर्थम्।
Annam na paricakṣīta, he should not discard food. Tad vratam, this is a vow for him, which is meant as a praise (of food) just as before.

तदेवं शुभाशुभकल्पनया अपरिह्रीयमाणं स्तुतं महीकृतमन्नं स्यात्।
Thus the food, that is not ignored through ideas of good or bad, becomes eulogised and heightened in esteem.

एवं यथोक्तमुत्तरेष्वपि आपो वा अन्नम् इत्यादिषु योजयेत्। अप्सु ज्योतिः इति॥

The idea, as explained before, should be similarly understood to be implied in the subsequent texts: āpaḥ vai annam, water indeed is food, etc.

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


अब्ज्योतिषोः अन्नान्नाद-गुणत्वेन उपासकस्य अन्नस्य बहुकरणं व्रतम्॥
The vow to make food plentiful is meant for one who worships fire and water as possessed of the attributes of food and the eater of food in the way that was mentioned by the text, ‘fire resides in water,’ etc. (in the preceding chapter, TaitU.3.8.1).

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


तथा पृथिव्याकाशोपासकस्य वसतौ वसतिनिमित्तं कंचन कंचिदपि न प्रत्याचक्षीत, वसत्यर्थमागतं न निवारयेदित्यर्थः।
So also there is a vow for one who meditates on earth and space (as mutually the food and the eater): na pratyācakṣīta, he should not refuse; kañcana, anybody, whomsoever; vasatau, in the matter of dwelling. The meaning is that he should not turn back anybody who may come for shelter.

वासे च दत्ते अवश्यं हि अशनं दातव्यम्। तस्माद् यया कया च विधया येन केन च प्रकारेण बह्वन्नं प्राप्नुयात् बह्वन्नसंग्रहं कुर्यादित्यर्थः।
Since, if shelter is given, food, too, must be supplied, therefore yayā kayā ca vidhayā, by any means whatsoever; prāpnuyāt bahu annam, he should get, i.e. collect, plenty of food.

यस्मादन्नवन्तो विद्वांसः अभ्यागताय अन्नार्थिने अराधि संसिद्धम् अस्मै अन्नम् इत्याचक्षते, न नास्तीति प्रत्याख्यानं कुर्वन्ति, तस्माच्च हेतोः बह्वन्नं प्राप्नुयादिति पूर्वेण संबन्धः।
Since the enlightened people (i.e. meditators) possessed of food, ācakṣate, say; ‘Annam arādhi asmai, food has been cooked (prepared) for this man’, and they do not refuse him by saying, ‘There is no food’, therefore also, one should acquire plenty of food. This is how this portion should be construed with the earlier.

अपि च अन्नदानस्य माहात्म्यमुच्यते –
Moreover, the greatness of the gift of food is being stated:

यथा यत्कालं प्रयच्छत्यन्नम्, तथा तत्कालमेव प्रत्युपनमते। कथमिति तदेतदाह – एतद्वै अन्नं मुखतः मुख्ये प्रथमे वयसि मुख्यया वा वृत्त्या पूजापुरःसरमभ्यागतायान्नार्थिने राद्धं संसिद्धं प्रयच्छतीति वाक्यशेषः।
Food greets one back in that very manner and at that very period (of life) in which it is offered. How? That is being explained: Etat vai, the fact that; annam, food; rāddham, cooked; mukhataḥ, in early age, or with the best attitude, with veneration –; ‘he offers to the guest seeking food’, this much is to be added to complete the sentence.

तस्य किं फलं स्यादिति, उच्यते – मुखतः पूर्वे वयसि मुख्यया वा वृत्त्या अस्मै अन्नदाय अन्नं राध्यते; यथादत्तमुपतिष्ठत इत्यर्थः।
What result will he get? The answer is: Asmai for this one – for the giver of food; annam rādhyate, food is cooked; mukhataḥ, in the early age, or in the best manner. The idea is that food falls to his share just as it was offered.

एवं मध्यतो मध्यमे वयसि मध्यमेन च उपचारेण; तथा अन्ततः अन्ते वयसि जघन्येन च उपचारेण परिभवेन तथैव अस्मै राध्यते संसिध्यत्यन्नम्॥

Similarly, madhyatah means during the middle part of life, and with middling courtesy. Thus, too, antataḥ means in the old age, and with scant courtesy, i.e. with discourtesy. In that very manner annam rādhyate asmai, food is cooked for him, food accrues to him.

य एवं वेद य एवमन्नस्य यथोक्तं माहात्म्यं वेद तद्दानस्य च फलम्, तस्य यथोक्तं फलमुपनमते।
Yaḥ evam veda, he who knows thus – knows the greatness of food and the result of that gift as stated –, to him befalls the aforesaid result (of that gift).

इदानीं ब्रह्मण उपासनप्रकारः उच्यते –
Now is being stated a process of meditation on Brahman:

क्षेम इति वाचि। क्षेमो नाम उपात्तपरिरक्षणम्। ब्रह्म वाचि क्षेमरूपेण प्रतिष्ठितमित्युपास्यम्।
Kṣemaḥ means the preservation of what has been acquired; Brahman is to be meditated on as existing vāci, in speech, in the form of preservation.

योगक्षेम इति, योगः अनुपात्तस्योपादानम्। तौ हि योगक्षेमौ प्राणापानयोः बलवतोः सतोर्भवतः यद्यपि, तथापि न प्राणापाननिमित्तावेव;
Yogaḥ means the acquisition of what is not in possession. Though these acquisition and preservation occur so long as exhaling and inhaling function, still they are not brought about by the mere fact of living.

किं तर्हि, ब्रह्मनिमित्तौ। तस्माद्ब्रह्म योगक्षेमात्मना प्राणापानयोः प्रतिष्ठितमित्युपास्यम्।
What are they, then, due to? They are caused by Brahman. Therefore Brahman is to be meditated on as existing prāṇa-apānayoḥ, in exhalation and inhalation, in the form of acquisition and preservation.

एवमुत्तरेष्वन्येषु तेन तेन आत्मना ब्रह्मैवोपास्यम्।
Similarly, with regard to the other succeeding cases Brahman is to he meditated on as identified with those (respective) things.

कर्मणो ब्रह्मनिर्वर्त्यत्वात् हस्तयोः कर्मात्मना ब्रह्म प्रतिष्ठितमित्युपास्यम्। गतिरिति पादयोःविमुक्तिरिति पायौ
Since work is done by Brahman, Brahman is to be meditated on as existing hastayoḥ, in the hands; (karma iti) in the form of work; gatiḥ iti, as movement; pādayoḥ, in the feet: vimuktiḥ iti, as discharge; pāyau, in the anus.

इति एता मानुषीः मनुष्येषु भवा मानुष्याः समाज्ञाः, आध्यात्मिक्यः समाज्ञा ज्ञानानि विज्ञानान्युपासनानीत्यर्थः।
Iti, these are: samājñāḥ, cognitions, perceptions, i.e. meditations; which are mānuṣīḥ (should be rather mānuṣyāḥ), pertaining to men, belonging to the physical body.

अथ अनन्तरं दैवीः दैव्यः देवेषु भवाः समाज्ञा उच्यन्ते।
Atha, after this; daivīḥ, (should be rather daivyāḥ), the divine, the meditations pertaining to the gods are being related.

तृप्तिरिति वृष्टौ। वृष्टेरन्नादिद्वारेण तृप्तिहेतुत्वाद्ब्रह्मैव तृप्त्यात्मना वृष्टौ व्यवस्थितमित्युपास्यम्;
Tṛptiḥ iti vṛṣṭau, as satisfaction in rain. Since rain causes contentment by producing food etc., Brahman is to be meditated on as existing in rain in the form of contentment.

तथा अन्येषु तेन तेनात्मना ब्रह्मैवोपास्यम्।
Similarly, in the case of other things, Brahman is to be meditated on as existing in those forms.

तथा बल-रूपेण विद्युति

So also It is to be meditated on as balam vidyuti, energy in lightning.

यशो-रूपेण पशुषुज्योती-रूपेण नक्षत्रेषु
(Brahman is to be worshipped) as yaśaḥ, fame; paśuṣu, among animals;
[•I.e. as existing in cattle-wealth, since wealth makes a man famous.•]
as jyotiḥ, light, nakṣatreṣu, in the stars.

प्रजातिः अमृतम् अमृतत्वप्राप्तिः पुत्रेण ऋणविमोक्षद्वारेण आनन्दः सुखमित्येतत्सर्वमुपस्थनिमित्तं ब्रह्मैव अनेनात्मना उपस्थे प्रतिष्ठितमित्युपास्यम्।
Prajātiḥ, procreation; a-mṛtam, immortality, getting of immortality – this being brought about by the son’s repaying the debts; ānandaḥ, happiness – all these originate from the organ of generation, and Brahman is to be meditated on as existing in those forms upasthe, in the generative organ.

सर्वं हि आकाशे प्रतिष्ठितम्; अतो यत्सर्वमाकाशे तद्ब्रह्मैवेत्युपास्यम्; तच्चाकाशं ब्रह्मैव
Since sarvam, everything; is placed ākāśe, in space (or the Unmanifested), therefore one should meditate thus: ‘All that is in space is Brahman.’ And that space, too, is Brahman.

तस्मात् तत् सर्वस्य प्रतिष्ठेति उपासीत। प्रतिष्ठागुणोपासनात् प्रतिष्ठावान् भवति
Therefore, tat pratiṣṭhā iti upāsīta, that (space-Brahman) is to be meditated on as the support of all. By meditating on the attribute of ‘being the sustainer’, one pratiṣṭhāvān bhavati becomes well established.

एवं सर्वेष्वपि। यद्यत्राधिगतं फलम्, तत् ब्रह्मैव; तदुपासनात्तद्वान्भवतीति द्रष्टव्यम्;
So also with regard to the previous cases, it is to be understood that any effect that is produced by any of the factors,
[•E.g. preservation, produced by speech, is Brahman.•]
is but Brahman only; and by meditating on that (effect as Brahman) one becomes possessed of it.

श्रुत्यन्तराच्च – ‘तं यथा यथोपासते तदेव भवति’ इति। तन् मह इत्युपासीत। महः महत्त्वगुणवत् तदुपासीत। महान् भवति
This also follows from another Veda text, ‘As he worships Him, so he becomes’ (Mudgalopaniṣad, III.3). Upāsīta, one should worship; tat, that (Brahman), mahaḥ iti, as possessed of greatness; (thereby) bhavati mahān, one becomes great.

तन् मन इत्युपासीत। मननं मनः। मानवान् भवति मननसमर्थो भवति॥

(Brahman should be meditated on as) manaḥ, thinking; (thereby) bhavati mānavān, he becomes able to think.

तन् नम इत्युपासीत नमनं नमः नमनगुणवत् तदुपासीत। नम्यन्ते प्रह्वीभवन्ति अस्मै उपासित्रे कामाः काम्यन्त इति भोग्या विषया इत्यर्थः।
Tat namaḥ, etc.: namaḥ means bowing down, (possessed of suppleness); Brahman is to be worshipped as possessed of suppleness; (thereby) kāmāḥ, desires, things that are desired, i.e. enjoyable things; namyante, bow down; asmai, to such a meditator.

तद्ब्रह्मेत्युपासीत। ब्रह्म परिबृढतमम् इति उपासीत। ब्रह्मवान् तद्गुणो भवति
One should meditate on tat brahman iti, that Brahman as the most exalted; (thereby) one bhavati brahmavān, becomes possessed of that quality of being the most exalted.
[•Like Virāṭ, possessed of all gross means of enjoyment.•]

तद्ब्रह्मणः परिमर इत्युपासीत ब्रह्मणः परिमरः परिम्रियन्तेऽस्मिन्पञ्च देवता विद्युद्वृष्टिश्चन्द्रमा आदित्योऽग्निरित्येताः।
Tat brahmaṇaḥ etc.: parimaraḥ is derived in the sense of that in which die, from all sides, the five gods, viz Lightning, Rain, Moon, Sun, and Fire.

अतः वायुः परिमरः, श्रुत्यन्तरप्रसिद्धेः।
Therefore air is their parimaraḥ, destruction – in accordance with another Veda text, (‘Air [Virāṭ] is, indeed, the place of merger’), (ChanU.4.3.1).

स एवायं वायुराकाशेनानन्य इत्याकाशो ब्रह्मणः परिमरः; तस्मादाकाशं वाय्वात्मानं ब्रह्मणः परिमर इत्युपासीत।
Again, this very air is non-different from space; hence space is brahmaṇaḥ parimaraḥ, Brahman’s medium of destruction. Upāsīta, one should meditate on; tat, that space, which is non-different from air,
[•Since air comes out of space (arises from dimension, space, being there first before motion, air).•]
as Brahman’s medium of destruction.

एनम् एवविदं प्रतिस्पर्धिनो द्विषन्तः; अद्विषन्तोऽपि सपत्ना यतो भवन्ति, अतो विशेष्यन्ते द्विषन्तः सपत्ना इति। एनं द्विषन्तः सपत्नाः ते परि-म्रियन्ते प्राणान् जहति।
(As a result) sa-patnāḥ, adversaries; who are dviṣantaḥ, envious; enam, towards this man; pari-mriyante, part with their lives. There may be adversaries who are not envious; hence the singling out in this form, ‘the envious adversaries’. Those adversaries that are envious towards this man (die).

किं च, येअप्रिया अस्य भ्रातृव्या अद्विषन्तोऽपि ते च परि-म्रियन्ते।
Moreover, ye bhrātṛvyāḥ, those adversaries of this man; who are a-priyāḥ, disliked (by him), though they may not be spiteful – they, too, pari-mriyante, die.

‘प्राणो वा अन्नं शरीरमन्नादम्’ इत्यारभ्य आकाशान्तस्य कार्यस्यैव अन्नान्नादत्वमुक्तम्।
Beginning with the text, ‘the vital force is, indeed, food, and the body is the eater of food’ (TaitU.3.7.1), and ending with space (TaitU.3.9.1), creation has been shown as food and the eater of food.

उक्तं नाम – किं तेन?
Objection: It might have been said so; What of that?

तेनैतत्सिद्धं भवति – कार्यविषय एव भोज्यभोक्तृत्वकृतः संसारः, न त्वात्मनीति। आत्मनि तु भ्रान्त्या उपचर्यते।
Answer: Thereby is proved this: Worldly existence, comprising enjoyment and enjoyership, pertain only to created things, but not to the Self; yet it is superimposed on the Self through ignorance.

नन्वात्मापि परमात्मनः कार्यम्, ततो युक्तः तस्य संसार इति;
Objection: The Self, too, is a product of the supreme Self, and hence the Self’s worldly existence is quite in order.

न, असंसारिण एव प्रवेशश्रुतेः। ‘तत्सृष्ट्वा तदेवानुप्राविशत्’ (TaitU.2.6.1) इत्याकाशादिकारणस्य हि असंसारिण एव परमात्मनः कार्येष्वनुप्रवेशः श्रूयते।
Answer: No, for the Upaniṣad refers to the entry of the Transcendental (Brahman). In the text, ‘Having created that, He entered into that very thing’ (TaitU.2.6.1), the entry into creation is predicated verily of the transcendental supreme Self which is, indeed, the cause of space etc.

तस्मात्कार्यानुप्रविष्टो जीव आत्मा पर एव असंसारी; सृष्ट्वा अनुप्राविशदिति समानकर्तृत्वोपपत्तेश्च। सर्गप्रवेशक्रिययोश्चैकश्चेत्कर्ता, ततः क्त्वाप्रत्ययो युक्तः।
Hence the Self which has entered into creation as the individual soul is none other than the supermundane, supreme Self. Moreover, this follows from the propriety of the same entity being the subject of the two verbs in the expression, ‘having created, he entered’. If the two verbs implying creation and entry have the same subject, then only is the suffix ktvā (-ing) justifiable.

प्रविष्टस्य तु भावान्तरापत्तिरिति चेत्,
Objection: But the one which enters undergoes a change.

न; प्रवेशस्यान्यार्थत्वेन प्रत्याख्यातत्वात्।
Answer: No, since entry has been explained away by giving it a different meaning (TaitU.2.6.1).

‘अनेन जीवेन आत्मना’ (ChanU.6.3.2) इति विशेषश्रुतेः धर्मान्तरेणानुप्रवेश इति चेत्,
Objection: May not the entry be through a change of attributes, since there is such a categorical text, ‘entering in the form of this individual soul (let me evolve name and form)’ (ChanU.6.3.2) speaks of entry under a different mode?

न; ‘तत् त्वमसि’ इति पुनस्तद्भानोक्तेः।
Answer: No, since reinstatement into the earlier mode is spoken of in ‘Thou art That’ (ChanU.6.8.7 – 16.3).

भावान्तरापन्नस्यैव तदपोहार्था संपदिति चेत्?
Objection: It is a meditation, involving the superimposition of the greater on the less, which is calculated to remove a change that has come over one (of the two).

न; ‘तत् सत्यम्’ ‘स आत्मा’ ‘तत् त्वमसि’ (ChanU.6.8.16) इति सामानाधिकरण्यात्।
Answer: No, for the two are placed on the same pedestal in the text, ‘That is truth, That is the Self; and thou art That’ (ibid).

दृष्टं जीवस्य संसारित्वमिति चेत्,
Objection: The worldly state of the individual soul is a perceived reality.

न; उपलब्धुरनुपलभ्यत्वात्।
Answer: No, for the perceiver cannot be perceived (BrhUEng.2.4.14).

संसारधर्मविशिष्ट आत्मोपलभ्यत इति चेत्,
Objection: The (individual) Self, as endowed with worldly attributes, is perceived.

न; धर्माणां धर्मिणोऽव्यतिरेकात् कर्मत्वानुपपत्तेः। उष्णप्रकाशयोर्दाह्यप्रकाश्यत्वानुपपत्तिवत्
Answer: Not so; (for if they are real attributes of the Self, then), since the attributes of a thing are non-separable from the substratum, they cannot reasonably become objects of perception, just as heat and light (of fire) cannot be subjected to burning or illumination (by fire).

त्रासादिदर्शनाद्दुःखित्वाद्यनुमीयत इति चेत्,
Objection: The soul is inferred to be possessed of sorrow etc., since fear etc. are seen (in it).

न; त्रासादेर्दुःखस्य च उपलभ्यमानत्वात् नोपलब्धृधर्मत्वम्।
Answer: No, for fear etc. and sorrow cannot be the qualities of the perceiver (soul), since they are perceived (by it).

कापिलकाणादादितर्कशास्त्रविरोध इति चेत्,
Objection: This runs counter to the (Sāṅkhya) scripture promulgated by Kapila, and to the science of logic built up by Kaṇāda and others.

न; तेषां मूलाभावे वेदविरोधे च भ्रान्तत्वोपपत्तेः। श्रुत्युपपत्तिभ्यां च सिद्धम् आत्मनोऽसंसारित्वम्, एकत्वाच्च।
Answer: Not so; for if they have no (logical) basis or if they are opposed to the Vedas, it is reasonable to call them erroneous. And from the Vedas as well as from reasoning, the Self is proved to be transcendental. Besides, this follows from the unity of the Self.

Objection: How is that unity?

उच्यते – स यश्चायं पुरुषे यश्चासावादित्ये स एकः इत्येवमादि पूर्ववत्सर्वम्॥

Answer: ‘Saḥ yaḥ ca ayam puruṣe yaḥ ca asau āditye saḥ ekaḥ, this one that is in man and that one abiding in the sun, are (one and the) same’ etc. (This translation from Panoli) (These) have been explained before (Il.viii.5). 5 – 6.

अन्नमयादिक्रमेण आनन्दमयमात्मानमुपसंक्रम्य एतत्साम गायन्नास्ते
Starting from the self constituted by food, and by degrees ānandamayam ātmānam upasaṅkramya, reaching the self, constituted by joy; āste, he sits (continues) gāyan, singing on; etat soma, this soma (song).

‘सत्यं ज्ञानम्’ इत्यस्या ऋचः अर्थः व्याख्यातः विस्तरेण तद्विवरणभूतया आनन्दवल्ल्या।
The meaning of the Ṛg-mantra – ‘Satyam jñānam etc. – Brahman is truth, knowledge,’ etc. (TaitU.2.1.1) – has been explained elaborately in the Part On Bliss, which is an exposition of it.

‘सोऽश्नुते सर्वान्कामान्सह ब्रह्मणा विपश्चिता’ (TaitU.2.1.1) इति तस्य फलवचनस्य अर्थविस्तारो नोक्तः।
But the meaning of the statement of its result contained in the text, ‘He enjoys, as identified with the all-knowing Brahman, all desirable things simultaneously’ (TaitU.2.1.1), has not been elaborated.

के ते? किंविषया वा सर्वे कामाः? कथं वा ब्रह्मणा सह समश्नुते? – इत्येतद्वक्तव्यमितीदमिदानीमारभ्यते।
Now the following text begins, since it remains to be shown what these results are, what the objects of all those desires are, and how he enjoys them simultaneously in his identity with Brahman.

तत्र पितापुत्राख्यायिकायां पूर्वविद्याशेषभूतायां तपः ब्रह्मविद्यासाधनमुक्तम्।
As to that, in the story of the father and the son (in TaitU.3), which is supplementary to the knowledge imparted earlier (in TaitU.2), concentration has been spoken of as a means for the knowledge of Brahman.

प्राणादेराकाशान्तस्य च कार्यस्य अन्नान्नादत्वेन विनियोगश्च उक्तः; ब्रह्मविषयोपासनानि च।
Besides, it has been shown how creation, counting from the vital force and ending with space, can be divided into the eater and the eaten; and the meditations on Brahman have been referred to.

ये च सर्वे कामाः प्रतिनियतानेकसाधनसाध्या आकाशादिकार्यभेदविषयाः, एते दर्शिताः।
Furthermore, all the enjoyments that there are and pertain to diverse products like space etc., have been shown to be the results of multifarious means that are systematically related to their results.

एकत्वे पुनः कामकामित्वानुपपत्तिः, भेदजातस्य सर्वस्य आत्मभूतत्वात्। तत्र कथं युगपद्ब्रह्मस्वरूपेण सर्वान्कामान् एवंवित्समश्नुत इति, उच्यते – सर्वात्मत्वोपपत्तेः।
On the attainment of unity, however, there cannot logically remain any desire or desirer, since all diversity becomes merged in the Self. So how can such a knower enjoy all desires simultaneously in the state of identity with Brahman? In answer to this question it is being said that this is possible because of his becoming the Self of all.

कथं सर्वात्मत्वोपपत्तिरिति, आह – पुरुषादित्यस्थात्मैकत्वविज्ञानेनापोह्योत्कर्षापकर्षौ अन्नमय-आदि-आत्मनोऽविद्याकल्पितान् क्रमेण संक्रम्य आनन्दमयान्तान् सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म अदृश्यादिधर्मकं स्वाभाविकमानन्दमजममृतमभयमद्वैतं फलभूतमापन्नः
To the question, ‘How is there an attainment of identity with the Self of all?’ – the answer is: As a result of the knowledge of the identity of the Self existing in the individual and the sun, having discarded excellence and non-excellence, saṅkramya, having attained in succession ātmānaḥ, the selves – starting with annamaya the one made of food (prāṇamaya, etc.) and ending with the one constituted by bliss which are fancied through ignorance, and having realized, as a result, Brahman which is truth, knowledge, and infinity, which is unperceivable etc. by nature, which is natural Bliss, and which is birthless, immortal, fearless, and non-dual;

इमँल्लोकान् भूरादीन् अनुसंचरन्न् इति व्यवहितेन संबन्धः।
And then (that man of knowledge) anusañcaran, wandering; on imān lokān, these worlds – the earth etc.; this is how the expression imān lokān is to be construed with the remote word anusañcaran.

कथमनुसंचरन्? कामान्नी कामतोऽन्नमस्येति कामान्नी; तथा कामतो रूपाण्यस्येति कामरूपी; अनुसंचरन् सर्वात्मना इमान् लोकानात्मत्वेन अनुभवन्।
Wandering how? (Becoming) kāmānnī – one who gets anna, food, according to kāma, wish, is kāmānnin, (having command over food at will); similarly, (becoming kāma-rūpī) one who gets rūpas, forms, according to his wish is kāma-rupin; wandering on all these worlds, in his identity with all, i.e. perceiving all these worlds as the Self.

किम्? एतत् साम गायन्नास्ते। समत्वाद्ब्रह्मैव साम सर्वानन्यरूपं गायन् शब्दयन् आत्मैकत्वं प्रख्यापयन् लोकानुग्रहार्थं तद्विज्ञानफलं च अतीव कृतार्थत्वं गायन् आस्ते तिष्ठति।
‘What does he do? Etat soma gāyan āste: āste, he continues; gāyan, singing, uttering; etat soma, this soma (song). Brahman Itself is the soma, because It is sama, equal, non-different from everything. (So the idea is): He continues declaring the unity of the Self as also announcing, for the good of others, the result of that knowledge consisting in absolute contentment.

कथम्? हा३वु हा३वु हा३वु। अहो इत्येतस्मिन्नर्थेऽत्यन्तविस्मयख्यापनार्थम॥

How does he sing? (He sings): Haaa-vu, haaa-vu, haaa-vu; the expression is used in the sense of ‘aho’ to indicate supreme surprise.

कः पुनरसौ विस्मय इति, उच्यते – अद्वैत आत्मा निरञ्जनोऽपि सन् अहम् एव अन्नम् अन्नादः च।
What, again, is that surprise? The answer is: Although I am really the untainted, non-dual Self, still aham, I am annam, food; as also anna-adaḥ, the eater of food.

किञ्च, अहम् एव श्लोककृत्। श्लोको नाम अन्नान्नादयोः संघातः, तस्य कर्ता चेतनावान्। अन्नस्यैव वा परार्थस्य अन्नादार्थस्य सतोऽनेकात्मकस्य पारार्थ्येन हेतुना संघातकृत्।
Moreover, aham, I myself; am the śloka-kṛt: śloka means union – union of food and the eater of food; the conscious being encompassing that union is the śloka-kṛt. Or the expression may mean this: I bring about the assemblage of food itself, which is naturally meant for somebody other than itself, viz the eater, and which becomes diversified owing to this very fact.

त्रिरुक्तिः विस्मयत्वख्यापनार्था।
The three repetitions are meant for expressing astonishment.

अहम् अस्मि भवामि। प्रथमजाः प्रथमजः प्रथमोत्पन्नः। ऋतस्य सत्यस्य मूर्तामूर्तस्यास्य जगतो देवेभ्यःपूर्वम् अमृतस्य नाभिः अमृतत्वस्य नाभिः, मध्यं मत्संस्थम् अमृतत्वं प्राणिनामित्यर्थः।
Aham asmi, I am; prathama-jāḥ (i.e. prathama-jaḥ), the first born (Hiraṇya-garbha); ṛtasya, of this world, consisting of the formed and the formless; and (I am Virāṭ which is) pūrvam, earlier; devebhyaḥ, than the gods. (I am) nābhiḥ (nābhāyī) the navel, centre; a-mṛtasya, of immortality, i.e. the immortality of living beings is in my keeping.

यः कश्चित् मा माम् अन्नमन्नार्थिभ्यो ददाति प्रयच्छति – अन्नात्मना ब्रवीति, सः इत् इत्थमेवेत्यर्थः, एवम् अविनष्टं यथाभूतं माम् आवाः अवतीत्यर्थः।
Yaḥ, anyone who; dadāti mā, offers me as food, to those who beg food – talks of me as the food; saḥ, he; iti, in this way; āvāḥ, i.e. avati, protects (me); evam, intact and just as I am.

यः पुनरन्यो मामदत्वा अर्थिभ्यः काले प्राप्तेऽन्नमत्ति तम् अन्नम् अदन्तं भक्षयन्तं पुरुषम् अहम् अन्नमेव सन् प्रत्य्-आद्मि भक्षयामि।
On the contrary, aham, I; who am but annam, the food, for the present; ādmi (i.e. admi), eat up; adantam annam, that eater of food – any other man, who eats food without offering me in the form of food – at the proper time – to those who ask.

अत्राह – एवं तर्हि बिभेमि सर्वात्मत्वप्राप्तेर्मोक्षात्; अस्तु संसार एव, यतो मुक्तोऽप्यहम् अन्नभूतः अद्यः स्याम् अन्यस्य।
At this point someone may say: ‘If this be so, I am afraid of liberation that consists in becoming the Self of all. Let my worldly existence itself continue; for even though liberated, I shall still be food to be eaten by somebody.’

एवं मा भैषीः; संव्यवहारविषयत्वात् सर्वकामाशनस्य; अतीत्यायं संव्यवहारविषयमन्नान्नादादिलक्षणमविद्याकृतं विद्यया ब्रह्मत्वमापन्नः विद्वान्;
(The answer is:) Do not entertain such a fear, for the enjoyment of all the desirable things falls within the range of relative existence. But this man of knowledge has become Brahman by transcending, through illumination, all that is described as the eater and the eaten which fall within the domain of empirical experience and which are the creations of ignorance.

तस्य नैव द्वितीयं वस्त्वन्तरमस्ति, यतो बिभेति;
For him there exists no separate thing of which he can be afraid. Hence there is nothing to be afraid of in liberation.

अतो न भेतव्यं मोक्षात्। एवं तर्हि किमिदमाह – अहमन्नमहमन्नाद इति?
Objection: If this be so, then what is meant by saying, ‘I am the eaten and the eater’?

उच्यते। योऽयमन्नान्नादादिलक्षणः संव्यवहारः कार्यभूतः, स संव्यवहारमात्रमेव; न परमार्थवस्तु। स एवंभूतोऽपि ब्रह्मनिमित्तो ब्रह्मव्यतिरेकेणासन्निति कृत्वा ब्रह्मविद्याकार्यस्य ब्रह्मभावस्य स्तुत्यर्थमुच्यते – ‘अहमन्नमहमन्नमहमन्नम्। अहमन्नादोऽहमन्नादोऽहमन्नादः’ इत्यादि।
Answer: This phenomenal existence, constituted by the eater and the eaten, which endures as a product, is nothing but a phenomenon; it is not a real substance. But though it is so, still, having in view the fact that it exists because of Brahman and that it is reduced to a nonentity apart from Brahman, this phenomenon is referred to in the text, ‘I am food,’ etc., for the sake of recommending the state of identity with Brahman which follows from the knowledge of Brahman.

अतः भयादिदोषगन्धोऽपि अविद्यानिमित्तः अविद्योच्छेदाद्ब्रह्मभूतस्य नास्तीति।
Therefore, when ignorance is eradicated, there cannot exist for the man identified with Brahman any remnant of such taints as fear which are the creations of ignorance.

अहं विश्वं समस्तं भुवनं भूतैः संभजनीयं ब्रह्मादिभिर्भवन्तीति वा अस्मिन् भूतानीति भुवनम् अभ्यभवाम् अभिभवामि परेणेश्वरेण स्वरूपेण।
Accordingly, aham, I; abhyabhavām, overwhelm, engulf in my supreme nature as God; viśvam, the whole; bhuvanam, universe – derivatively meaning that which is enjoyed by all beings counting from Brahmā, or that on which all creatures are born.

सुवर्न ज्योतीः सुवः आदित्यः; नकार उपमार्थे; आदित्य इव सकृद्विभातमस्मदीयं ज्योतीः ज्योतिः, प्रकाश इत्यर्थः।
Suvaḥ na joytīḥ: Suvaḥ is the sun; na expresses similitude. The meaning is: Our jyotīḥ (jyotiḥ), effulgence; is ever-shining suvaḥ na, like the sun.

इति वल्लीद्वयविहिता उपनिषत् परमात्मज्ञानम्;
Iti upaniṣad, this is the knowledge of the supreme Self, inculcated in the two Parts (TaitU.2 and TaitU.3).

तामेतां यथोक्तामुपनिषदं शान्तो दान्त उपरतस्तितिक्षुः समाहितो भूत्वा भृगुवत् तपो महदास्थाय य एवं वेद, तस्येदं फलं यथोक्तमोक्ष इति॥

To him come the aforesaid fruits who, like Bhṛgu, masters (yaḥ evam veda, who thus knows) the above mentioned Upaniṣad through practice of great concentration after the acquisition of control over the inner and outer organs, dispassionateness, imperturbability, and concentration.

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 तैत्तिरीय-उपनिषद् समाप्ता॥