Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Philosophy of the Upanishads c10.s2.t2: 2. Brahman as Ruler of the Universe

The Philosophy of the Upanishads c10.s2.t2

Language
English

2. Brahman as Ruler of the Universe

c10.s2.t2.1

When it is said in the words quoted from Bṛih. 4. 4. 22, and also in Kaush. 3. 8 (probably in imitation of this passage):—“He is the protector of the universe, he is the ruler of the universe,” two things are implied: (1) that the âtman as protector of the universe maintains things in their condition. This point has been already discussed,—and (2) that he as ruler of the universe guides the creatures in their action. For this latter statement the principal chapter to be considered, together with several that have been already quoted, is Bṛih. 3. 7, which treats of the âtman as the antaryâmin, i.e. the “inner guide.” Yâjñavalkhya begins his instruction on this subject in Bṛih. 3. 7. 3 with the words:—“He who dwelling on the earth is distinct from the earth, whom the earth knows not, whose body the earth is, who rules the earth from within, he is thy soul, the inner guide, the immortal.” What is here asserted of the earth is then further affirmed, with continual repetition of the same formula, of eleven other natural phenomena (water, fire, atmosphere, wind, sky, sun, heavenly regions, moon and stars, ether, darkness and light), then of all living creatures, and finally of the eight organs (breath, speech, eye, ear, manas, skin, intellect, seed); all these natural phenomena, living creatures, and organs are thus the body of the âtman, but are distinct (antara) from him, do not know him, and yet are ruled by him from within. The passage also is frequently used in the sequel. This is especially the case in Mâṇḍûkya 6, and in its reproduction in Nrisiṁhap. 4. 1, Nrisiṁhott. 1, Râmott. 3; also Brahmop. 1 and Bâshkala. A (worthless) definition of the Antaryâmin is given in Sarvopanishatsâra No. 19 :— “ When the âtman as the cause of the natural constitution of compounds endowed with the supreme (consciousness) etc., appears in all bodies, like the string threaded through the store of pearls, he is then called the inner guide” (antaryâmin). In the Vedântasâra § 43 the antaryâmin is identified with Îśvara. A similar place is held by it in the system of Râmânuja.

c10.s2.t2.2

To the antaryâmin of Bṛih. 3. 7 there corresponds in the “honey-doctrine” of Bṛih. 2. 5 the “mighty immortal spirit” (tejomaya amṛitamaya purusha), who dwells in all cosmical and psychical phenomenal forms, and therefore renders possible their mutual influence. Here also the valuable fundamental thought is presented in a form which for us has little attraction, in that the same stereotyped formula is repeated fourteen times in succession, a different idea being employed each time :—“This earth,” so the section begins, “is the honey of all living creatures, is the honey of all living creatures ; but that which on the earth that mighty immortal spirit is, and that which in relation to the self that corporeal mighty immortal spirit is, it is even that which is the soul (âtman) here. This is the immortal, this is Brahman, this the universe.” The same which is here affirmed of earth and body is then further affirmed, with invariable repetition of the same formula, of water and seed, fire and speech, wind and breath, sun and eye, etc. The eye is nourished (exists) by the sun, and the sun by the eye (it would not be there if no eye beheld it), and this mutual dependence is only possible because in both the same mighty immortal spirit, *i.e.* the âtman, dwells.¹

c10.s2.t2.3

¹ In the introduction to our translation of this paragraph (*Upan.*, p. 420) we have already called attention to the similar teaching of Kant of the “affinity of phenomenal forms,” which is possible only through the “synthetic unity of apperception,” *i.e.* through the knowing subject.

c10.s2.t2.4

By the side of these leading passages it will be sufficient merely to make brief mention of the twelve or sixteen purushas put forward as Brahman by Bâlâki Gârgya in Bṛih. 2. 1, Kaush. 4, with which Ajâtas'atru contrasts the âtman as he “who is the creator of all those spirits, whose work this universe is.”² Just as the eight purushas regarded as the âtman by Vidagdha S'akalya in Bṛih. 3. 9. 10–18, 26 (corporeality, desire, the sun, hearing, the shadow, the mirror, water, the son), with which Yâjñavalkhya contrasts the “spirit of the Upanishad doctrine” (*aupanishada purusha*), “who impelling asunder these spirits, and driving them back, steps over and beyond them,” *i.e.* who spurs them on to their work, recalls them from it, and is pre-eminent over them.³

c10.s2.t2.5

² Kaush. 4. 19.

c10.s2.t2.6

³ Bṛih. 3. 9. 26.

Linked texts (6)