Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Philosophy of the Upanishads c9.s2.t4: 4. Six Inadequate Definitions

The Philosophy of the Upanishads c9.s2.t4

Language
English

4. Six Inadequate Definitions

c9.s2.t4.1

Precisely as in Bṛih. 2. 1 twelve defective (*ekapâd*) definitions of Brahman are criticised, in Kaush. 4 sixteen, and in Bṛih. 3. 9. 10–17 eight, so in Bṛih. 4. 1 there are six; and here Janaka approaches Yâjñavalkhya after having fortified his soul with mystic doctrines, *upani-shads*, as the traveller provisions his ship or waggon.¹ These "*upanishads*" consist in six definitions of Brahman enunciated by other teachers, as speech, breath, eye, ear, *manas*, and heart. All these definitions may still be found in the extant texts, if not always exactly under the names assigned. For instance, for *vâg vai brahma* see Pañc'av. Br. 20. 14. 2, Chând. 7. 2. 2; for *prâṇo vai brahma*, Bṛih. 1. 5. 23, 3. 7. 1–2, Chând. 4. 3. 3, 7. 15, Taitt. 3. 3, Kaush. 2. 1, 2, 2. 13, Pras'na 2. 13; *c'akshur vai brahma*, Chând. 1. 7. 4, 4. 15. 1, 8. 7. 4, Kaush. 4. 17, 18, Bṛih. 2. 3. 5, 5. 5. 4; *s'rotram vai brahma*, Taitt. 3. 1, Kaush. 4. 14; *mano vai brahma*, Chând. 3. 18. 1, Ait. 3. 2; *hṛidayam vai brahma*, Chând. 3. 12. 4, 8. 3. 3, Bṛih. 5. 3; cp. also in general Chând. 3. 18, where *vâc'*, *prâṇa*, *c'akshuḥ*, *s'rotram* form the four feet of Brahman, and Chând. 4. 8. 3, where *prâṇa*, *c'akshuḥ*, *s'rotram*, *manas* are one of his four feet. These and all similar definitions, whether they are historical or only invented to give colour to historical tendencies, arise from the endeavour to know that which is essentially unknowable; for which purpose no resource is open but to conceive it with conscious or unconscious symbolism under the form of some one of its phenomenal appearances. The criticism to which Yâjñavalkhya subjects these six definitions of Brahman as *vâc'*, *prâṇa*, *c'akshus*, *s'rotram*, *manas*, and *hṛidayam* consists in explaining them as mere "supports" (*âyatana*), by means of which six corresponding attributes that are assumed to belong to the divine Being as *prajñâ*, *priyam*, *satyam*, *ananta*, *ânanda*, *sthiti*, manifest themselves in the space which is common to all six as basis (*pratishtha*). If, however, we seek to ascertain further the nature of these six attributes, we are referred back again to their six manifestations in space as *vâc*, *prâna*, *c'akshus*, *s'rotram*, *manas*, *hridayam*. And so, thrown backwards and forwards between the phenomenal forms of experience, and the empirical attributes of the divine Being which find expression in them, we learn that phenomena can only be explained by phenomena, and that it is not in this way that we can arrive at a knowledge of the nature of the Godhead. Yâjñavalkhya accordingly himself adopts another way,¹ and, starting from the question what becomes of the soul after death, first of all sketches a picture of the individual soul as it dwells in the heart encompassed and nourished by the veins, and extends its feelers, as it were, in the two eyes; then suddenly draws aside, like a veil that hides it, this entire individual soul, so that before and around and in us we see only the one omnipresent supreme soul. And thus the question concerning the future existence of the individual receives its answer in that it is deprived of all justification, and falls to the ground meaningless. Nor have we even to-day any better reply to give.

c9.s2.t4.2

¹ Bṛih. 4. 2. 1.

c9.s2.t4.3

¹ Brih. 4. 2.

Linked texts (7)