Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Philosophy of the Upanishads c9.s3: III. Symbolic Representations of Brahman

The Philosophy of the Upanishads c9.s3

Language
English

Contents

III. Symbolic Representations of Brahman

1. Introduction and Classification

c9.s3.t1.1

By a symbol (σύμβολον) the ancient writers understood the visible sign of an invisible object or circumstance. The word itself may be derived from the piecing together (συμβάλλειν) of a broken ring or the like carried by guests, messengers, etc., as their authorisation, to the other half that has been laid by, or simply from the mutual understanding (συμβάλλειν) on which the recognition of this visible token depended. An illustration lying very near to hand for the conception of a symbol is furnished by the words which language uses. These are to be regarded collectively as the visible signs of the invisible ideas which they represent, and therefore Aristotle pertinently remarks:—τῶν δὲ ὀνομάτων ἕκαστον σύμβολόν ἐστιν:² and ἔστι μὲν οὖν τὰ ἐν τῇ φωνῇ τῶν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ παθημάτων σύμβολα, καὶ τὰ γραφόμενα τῶν ἐν τῇ φωνῇ.³ So also the Church calls its sacraments and doctrinal formulæ symbols. They are the external tokens of adhesion to its fellowship.

c9.s3.t1.2

² De Sensu I. p. 437.

c9.s3.t1.3

³ De Interp. I. p. 16.

c9.s3.t1.4

The Indian word for symbol, *pratīkam*, depends upon a similar conception. It denotes originally (from *prati-añc*) the side “turned towards” us, and therefore visible, of an object in other respects invisible. In this sense the teachers of the Vedānta often speak of symbols (*pratīkāni*) of Brahman. They understand by the term definite representations of Brahman under some form perceptible by the senses, *e.g.* as name, speech, etc.,⁴ as *manas* and *âkâśa*,¹ as *âditya*,² as the fire of digestion,³ or even as *om*,⁴ which for the purpose of worship are regarded as Brahman, and are related to the latter as the images of the gods (*pratimâ, arcâ*) to the gods that they represent.⁵ As early as Bâdarâyaṇa⁶ the distinction is drawn between the worshippers of Brahman under such symbols and the worshippers of Brahman “endowed with attributes” (*saguṇa*). The latter possess a knowledge of Brahman, and pass accordingly by the *devayâna*, which leads to Brahman; while the worshippers of the symbol are by it hindered from discerning Brahman,⁷ and hence they receive as fruit only the reward specified for each symbol.⁸ In the sequel this distinction is not consistently maintained. The worship of Brahman by means of the syllable *om* leads, according to Pras'na 5. 5, by the *devayâna* to Brahman, and the worship of Brahman as *prâṇa* is usually assigned to that branch of knowledge which concerns itself with qualities, and only exceptionally⁹ to the symbolical worships, to which, nevertheless, it belongs according to passages like Bṛih. 4. 1. 3 (*prâṇa* by the side of *vâc*, *manas*, etc.), 2. 3. 4 (with *âkâśa*), Chând. 3. 18. 4 (subordinated to *manas*, by the side of *vâc*, etc.).

c9.s3.t1.5

⁴ Chând. 7.

c9.s3.t1.6

¹ Chând. 3. 18.

c9.s3.t1.7

² Chând. 3. 19.

c9.s3.t1.8

³ Bṛih. 5. 9, Chând. 3. 13. 8.

c9.s3.t1.9

⁴ Chând. 1. 1.

c9.s3.t1.10

⁵ cp. S'ankara on Brahmasûtra, pp. 147. 14, 189. 8, 217. 10, 835. 9, 1059. 6; on Chândogya, pp. 9. 8, 10. 1, 21. 3.

c9.s3.t1.11

⁶ Sûtram 4. 3. 15–16, cp. 4. 1. 4.

c9.s3.t1.12

⁷ P. 1135. 7, *pratîka-pradhânatvâd upâsanasya*.

c9.s3.t1.13

⁸ E.g. Chând. 7. 1–14.

c9.s3.t1.14

⁹ E.g. on Brahmasûtra 4. 1, 5.

c9.s3.t1.15

Nevertheless the definite conception of the symbol is wanting in the Upanishads, just as the word *pratîkam* in this sense is not there found. When, however, in the extracts discussed in the preceding chapter¹⁰ certain concrete representations of Brahman are rejected as inadequate, though they are acknowledged to be meritorious, as is shown by the promise of a reward, we are able, as is the case with so many doctrines of the later Vedânta, to trace in passages like those quoted the earliest rise of the conception of the symbol.

c9.s3.t1.16

¹⁰ Bṛih. 4. 1; Chând. 5. 12–17, 7. 1–14.

c9.s3.t1.17

By symbol in a wider sense we understand all the representations conceived with a view to the worship of Brahman, himself incapable of representation, under some one of his phenomenal forms; and therefore especially as *prâna* and *vâyu*, as *âkâśa*, *manas*, and *âditya*, as the fire of digestion and the syllable *om*. To the discussion of these symbols in the present chapter must further be added the symbolical interpretations of ritualistic conceptions, and finally the substitution for liturgical practices of others which are related to the âtman doctrine.

2. Brahman as Prâna and Vâyu

c9.s3.t2.1

No natural phenomenon bears so ambiguous a character, none appears to be derived so immediately from the most intimate essence of things and so fully to reveal it, as the phenomenon of life, manifested in the activity of all the vital organs (*prânas*), but above all in the process of breathing (*prâna*) which determines the life itself. Hence as early as the Brâhmana period the central significance of *prâna* (breath or life) was discussed together with its superiority to the other *prânas* (vital forces, as the eye, ear, speech, *manas*), and its identity with *Vâyu*, the god of the wind as the vital breath of the universe, was discussed. All these discussions are continued in the Upanishads, especially in the older texts, which yet are unable to apprehend the first principle of the universe otherwise than in its most obvious phenomenal forms; until the *prâna*, whether by a process of subordination or identification, retires more and more behind the âtman, and appears only as an occasional synonym for it.

c9.s3.t2.2

That the body of all (organic) beings can be sustained only as long as the *prâṇa* inhabits it, is taught in a passage frequently misunderstood, Chând. 1. 11. 5:—*sarvâṇi ha vâ' imâni bhûtâni prâṇam eva abhisamvis'anti, prâṇam abhyujjihate*. This does not mean, as S'ankara and many with him explain it, that beings enter (at death) into *prâṇa*, and are thence born anew, but rather the contrary:—"All these creatures enter with the breath (into the body), and with the breath they again depart out." The best illustration is furnished by the metaphor Pras'na 2. 4, which contains possibly a reminiscence of our passage, and by Brahma Upanishad 1, which is dependent upon it. The illustration is employed, it is true, not of living beings, but of the individual organs in their relation to the *prâṇa*. "Just as the bees all follow the queen bee when she comes forth, and so long as she tarries all tarry, so also speech, manas, eye, and ear." The *prâṇa* is the fundamental and constant part of the sixteen of which man consists. In Bṛih. 1. 5. 14 this is illustrated in mythological language by the example of Prajâpati, who loses a sixteenth part each night with the waning of the moon:—"And after that at new moon he has entered with the sixteenth part into everything which has breath, thereupon is he born on the following morning (as the crescent of the new moon)." Here Prajâpati, after the loss of his fifteen changeable parts, continues to exist at the new moon with his sixteenth "unchangeable" (*dhruva*) part solely as *prâṇa* in all living beings. From a physiological point of view this thought is explained in Chând. 6. 7; man consists of sixteen parts, of which after a fifteen days' fast only one, the *prâṇa*, survives. An enumeration of these sixteen parts is undertaken in Pras'na 6. 3-4:—"He (purusha) reflected, 'With the departure of what shall I myself depart, and with the remaining of what shall I remain?' Accordingly he created the *prâṇa*"; from which, as the passage goes on to declare, the fifteen other parts originate. Here, in harmony with the later date of the composition, the prâṇa is dependent on the purusha, i.e. the âtman, but is still at the same time its empirical representative. As such, as the bhûman brought within the circle of experience (in the distinction of subject and object), the prâṇa makes its appearance already in the beautiful description of Chând. 7. 15:—“As the spokes are inserted into the nave of the wheel, so everything is inserted into this life (prâṇa). The life advances by the life (the breath), the life (breath) gives the life, it becomes the life. The life is father and mother, the life is brother and sister, the life is teacher and Brâhman. Therefore if a father or mother or brother or sister or teacher or Brâhman is used roughly, men say of you, Fie, you are a parricide, a matricide, a murderer of brother or sister, of teacher or Brâhman. Should he, however, strike even these with a spear, after the life has departed (on the funeral pyre) and they are burnt to the last hair, then it is not said, ‘You are a parricide, a matricide, a murderer of brother or sister, of teacher or Brâhman’; for the life only is all this.” The comparison that occurs here of the prâṇa to the nave of a wheel, in which all the spokes meet, is found again: (1) of the prâṇa, in Pras’na 2. 6, in the hymn to the prâṇa here inserted, though derived from an earlier period, and which recalls not only Vâj. Saṁh. 34. 5, but also in many ways Atharvav. 11. 4; (2) of the prâṇa, which is already identified in the second place with Prajñâtman in Kaush. 3. 8 (for which is substituted, in Kaush. 4. 20, the figure of the chieftain and his people); (3) of the âtman, in Bṛih. 2. 5. 15, cp. 1. 5. 15 Muṇḍ. 2. 2. 6 Pras’na 6. 6, and interpreted in S’vet. 1. 4, in terms of Sâṅkhyan thought.

c9.s3.t2.3

The superiority of the prâṇa to the other vital organs (eye, ear, speech, manas, etc.) is illustrated by the parable of the rivalry of the organs, which forms a favourite theme of the Upanishads. In order to test which of them is the most essential, the prāṇas (eye, ear, speech, etc.) one after another leave the body, which nevertheless still continues to exist; but when the prāṇa proposes to depart, they become conscious that none of them can exist without it. This narrative, known by the name of prāṇasaṃvāda, is found in Chând. 5. 1. 6–12, Bṛih. 6. 1. 7–13, Kaush. 2. 14, cp. 3. 3, Ait. Ār. 2. 1. 4, Pras'na 2. 2–4.¹ The most original form is preserved unquestionably in Chând. 5. 1. 6–12. The vital organs (only speech, eye, ear, and manas are mentioned besides prāṇa) come to Prajāpati, contending for precedence. His decision is given :—" That one amongst you, after whose departure the body finds itself in the worst condition, has the precedence among you." Thereupon in succession speech, eye, ear, and manas depart, without the body on that account ceasing to exist. "Thereupon the prāṇa proposed to go forth ; but as a noble steed (if he breaks loose) tears away the foot-ropes that hold fast his feet, so he tore away with him the other vital breaths. Then they all came to him and said :—' Worthy sir, thou art he ; thou hast the precedence over us, only go not forth.'" Bṛih. 6. 1. 7–13 relates the story almost in the same words, but with the substitution of Brahman for Prajāpati, the addition of a sixth organ, and the further elaboration of the illustration of the steed. All these variations are in favour of the originality of the version of the Chândogya. Kaush. 3. 3 supplies only an argument which assumes the narrative in the form indicated. Kaush. 2. 14 represents all the organs as going forth together, but returning separately; on the return of the prāṇa the body revives. Here the motive for the united departure is wanting. Ait. Âr. 2. 1. 4 twice brings to a settlement the question which of the prâṇas is *uktham*, by the collapse of the body on the departure of the prâṇa, and again by its revival when the prâṇa returns. In this case an inferior impression is created both by the doubling of the proof of superiority, and by the application of the story to the glorification of the *uktham*. Pras'na 2. 2-4 represents the prâṇa indignant at the behaviour of the others preparing forthwith to depart, whereupon speech, manas, eye, and ear are carried away with it, and beg the prâṇa to remain. This is clearly an abbreviated form of the original narrative; what is new is only the substitution of the illustration of the queen bee for that of the steed. These relations are of interest, since they supply a foundation for the chronology of the corresponding texts.

c9.s3.t2.4

¹ A further recension, according to Weber's statement, occurs in Kaush. Ar. 9. On Bṛih. 1. 5. 21, cp. also infra.

c9.s3.t2.5

Connected with this narrative of the dispute of the organs for precedence is another of the strife of the gods, *i.e.* the organs, against the demons. We limit ourselves to a comparison of the two chief recensions, Bṛih. 1. 3 and Chând. 1. 2.¹ Of these two, Bṛih. 1. 3 is unquestionably the more original. In order to vanquish the demons the gods, *i.e.* the organs, speech, smell, eye, ear, manas, and prâṇa, instruct one of their number to sing the *udgîtha*. Speech essays the task, but while singing is overcome with evil by the demons. A similar fate overtakes in succession smell, eye, ear, and manas. Finally prâṇa undertakes it, and the assailing demons are scattered before him like a clod of earth when it falls on a stone. Thereupon prâṇa leads the others away beyond the reach of evil and death, whereby speech goes to Agni, smell to Vâyu, the eye to Âditya, the ear to the heavenly regions, the manas to the moon. All these deities then, in order to enjoy food, enter again as speech, smell, eye, ear, and manas into the prâṇa. The same idea is found in Ait. 1-2, adapted to the conception of the purusha as the primeval man. To these legends Bṛih. 1. 3. 19 attaches a glorification of the prâṇa as Ayâsya Âṅgirasa, as Bṛihaspati and Brahmanaspati, as Sâman and even as Udgîtha. Previously he sang the udgîtha, now he is the udgîtha. It is quite clear that we have here an amalgamation of two texts originating from different points of view. We now understand the strange version of our story in Chând. 1. 2, where the gods in their strife against the demons approach the individual organs, not for the purpose of securing that the udgîtha shall be sung by them, but in order to worship them as udgîtha. The author of this section found the story of the strife followed already (just as is the case still in the Bṛihad.) by a worship of the prâṇa as udgîtha. Both pieces, though radically different, and only by accident standing side by side, were blended into one whole, whereby the narrative entirely lost its original character.¹

c9.s3.t2.6

¹ Other discussions of the same theme will be found in Talav. Up. Br. 1. 60, 2. 1-2, 2. 3, 2. 10-11.

c9.s3.t2.7

¹ See further, Deussen, Upan., p. 66 ff.

c9.s3.t2.8

The last-quoted legend suggests already that the prâṇa is not merely a psychical but also a cosmical principle, that it is not only the breath of life in men, but also the universal breath of life which prevails throughout the whole of nature. This transition is very natural. Among the most diverse peoples, from the purusha of the hymn Ṛigv. X. 90 to the giant Ymir of the Edda, we meet with the tendency to regard mankind as a microcosm, and vice versâ the universe as a makranthropos. This thought depends, in the first instance, upon the fact that that which is manifested in nature as a whole, with all its phenomena, finds its most definite and complete expression in man. But in detail also the human organism enters into manifold relations with the external world. By means of its various organs and functions it extends itself, as it were, over-against the surrounding phenomena of nature, and accommodates itself to them. The organs of nutrition correspond to the constitution of food, the breathing organs to the atmosphere; the structure of the feet corresponds to the earth, upon which they will have to move; and in the curvature of the head the vaulting of the heaven seems to be reproduced.¹

c9.s3.t2.9

¹ cp. Plat. Tim. 44 D.

c9.s3.t2.10

It is perhaps due to considerations of this nature that as early as the hymn of the purusha,² describing the transformation of the primeval man into the universe, his head becomes the heaven, his navel the atmosphere, his feet the earth, his eye the sun, his manas the moon, his mouth Indra and Agni (fire), his ears the heavenly regions, and his prâṇa the wind. In general, precisely as we were led to recognise in prâṇa the central organ of life, as explained above, so that which corresponds to it in the universe, the wind, must become the vital principle of nature, whether we regard it merely as the prâṇa that pervades the whole universe, as in the hymns elsewhere quoted,³ or contrast vâyu and prâṇa as cosmical and psychical analogies, as is the case in the following passages.

c9.s3.t2.11

² Ṛigv. X. 90. 13-14.

c9.s3.t2.12

³ Atharvav. 11. 4 and Pras'na 2. 5-13; cp. Deussen, Upan., p. 562.

c9.s3.t2.13

In Bṛih. 1. 5. 21-23 the narrative of the rivalry of the organs appears in a new form, in so far as side by side with the psychical organs, speech, eye, ear, and prâṇa, their cosmical equivalents also, fire, sun, moon, and vâyu, come forward in mutual rivalry. Since these last cannot be said to depart from the body, this feature of the narrative is necessarily omitted, and there is substituted for it in the case of the psychical organs exhaustion, in the case of the cosmical a temporary entrance into repose.

c9.s3.t2.14

Only prāṇa and vāyu do not become exhausted; accordingly the others take refuge in them, and at the close it is said that the sun rises and sets in the (cosmical) prāṇa. A similar conception lies at the foundation of the magnifying of the wind in Bṛh. 3. 3. 2:—"The wind therefore is the particular (uyashti), and the universal (samashti)." In another version of the same narrative, Bṛh. 3. 7, the wind (cosmical and psychical) is celebrated as the thread of the universe (sūtram) which holds together all beings:—"By the wind as thread, O Gautama, this world and the other world and all creatures are bound together. For this very reason, O Gautama, it is said of a dead man, 'his limbs have been relaxed'; for by the wind as thread, O Gautama, were they bound together."¹ Just as the prāṇa binds things together from without, so, as is explained in the following words of Bṛh. 3. 7. 3-23, the Antaryāmin (inner guide), i.e. the ātman, rules them from within. The connecting together prāṇa and antaryāmin is part of the attempt, thus early made, to advance from the symbolical method to that of abstract conception, of which more will later be said.

c9.s3.t2.15

¹ Bṛh. 3. 7. 2.

c9.s3.t2.16

Since it has been already shown in Ait. Br. 8. 28 in the brahmaṇaḥ parimaraḥ, the "dying (of the foes) around the magic spell (uttered by the king)," how the natural phenomena, lightning, rain, sun, moon, and fire, become extinct in the wind and emerge from it again, Kaush. 2. 12-13 proceeds to teach the daivaḥ parimaraḥ, the "dying of the gods around (the prāṇa)." The cosmical divinities (fire, sun, moon, lightning), and the corresponding psychical divinities (speech, eye, ear, manas) do not die, when their brahman (here, their phenomenal form) vanishes; their brightness only they deliver over to other gods, while they themselves with their prāṇa enter, the cosmical into vāyu, the psychical into prāṇa, which in essence are one :—" All these divinities therefore enter into the prâṇa, and die in the prâṇa ; they are not, however, lost when they enter in, but arise again from him." Here *vâyu-prâṇa* appears as the true first principle of the universe, while the "brahman" is to be interpreted as only its manifestation in natural phenomena, and therefore is apparently subordinated to the prâṇa.

c9.s3.t2.17

The entrance of all the gods of nature into vâyu, and of all the gods of the senses into the prâṇa which is identical with it, is also the theme of a discussion which is frequently met with, but occurs in its best and probably most original form in S'atap. Br. X. 3. 3. 5–8. There inquiry is made for "the fire, which is this universe," and the answer is given,—" In truth, the prâṇa (breath, life) is this fire. For when a man sleeps, his speech enters into the prâṇa, the eye enters into the prâṇa, the manas enters into the prâṇa, the ear enters into the prâṇa ; and when he awakes, from the prâṇa are they reborn. Thus far in relation to the self. Next in relation to the gods. In truth, Agni is that which this speech is here, yonder Âditya is this eye, yonder moon this manas, and the heavenly regions this ear. But yonder vâyu (wind), which purifies there as it blows, is this prâṇa (breath). When now the fire (agni) is extinguished, it is blown out in the wind ; therefore we say, it has been blown out, for it is blown out in the wind. And when the sun (âditya) sets, it enters into the wind ; and similarly the moon and the heavenly regions are dependent on the wind ; and from the wind they are reborn. He therefore who departs from this world knowing this enters with his speech into the fire, with his eye into the sun, with his manas into the moon, with his ear into the heavenly regions, with his prâṇa into vâyu ; for from them he has arisen, and from these divinities, whom he ever loves, united to them he finds rest." This speculation was later on associated with the legend of S'aunaka and Abhipratârin, who during a meal were importuned by a brahmac'ârin, who proposed to them a riddle on this subject. In this form, which is apparently no longer preserved, the narrative became again the groundwork of Talav. Up. Br. 3. 1-2, where the text is further elaborated and expounded, and also of Chând. 4. 2-3, which seems to be more faithful to the original form. The whole discussion, however, together with the legend, is comprised within a second legend, while (quite incongruously) both the discussion and the story of the beggar student are put into the mouth of Raikva as he gives instruction to Jânas'ruti.¹

c9.s3.t2.18

¹ cp. Deussen, *Upan.*, pp. 117-120.

c9.s3.t2.19

Conceptions such as those referred to account for the fact that in the Upanishads we frequently meet with the explanation that Brahman, whose nature it is sought to ascertain, is the prâṇa, the breath of life that pervades both the universe and the human body. This is the case in the definition of Bṛih. 4. 1. 3, judged by Yâjñavalkhya to be inadequate, *prâṇo vai brahma*; or Bṛih. 5. 13, where *uktham*, *yajus*, *sâman*, and *kshatram* (i.e. probably the four Vedas, as the sum of all that was originally denoted by *brahman*) are explained as the prâṇa. We shall meet later on with other passages of this character, in which the prâṇa is recognised as a first principle, but immediately set aside, as for instance Chând. 4. 10. 5, *prâṇo brahma, kam brahma, kham brahma*; and we propose to cite here two more passages only, Kaush. 2. 1 and 2. 2, in which a beginning seems to be made towards such a superseding of prâṇa. Both passages, the one on the authority of the Kaushîtaki, the other on that of the Paingya, explain the prâṇa as brahman. Both draw thence the inference that he who knows himself as the prâṇa that fills all things does not need to beg for food (na yâc'et is his “upanishad”), since he enjoys nourishment in all beings. According to the first passage, speech, eye, ear, and manas are the servants of prâṇa; according to the second, they encompass it, speech around the eye, this again around the ear, this around the manas, and this around the prâṇa. But of the last also it is said, He is set around (ârundhate). Around what is not stated. But in this may be found the first intimation of the great truth formulated in Taitt. 2. 2, that the prâṇamaya âtman also is not the kernel, but only the innermost sheath.

3. Other Symbols of Brahman

c9.s3.t3.1.1

The two most important types besides the prâṇa under which Brahman is to be worshipped appear to be manas and âkâs'a. The principal relevant passage is Chândogya 3. 18:—“The manas is to be worshipped as Brahman; thus far in relation to the self. Next in relation to the godhead; the âkâs'a (ether, space) is (to be worshipped) as Brahman. Thereby both are taught, that in relation to the self, and this in relation to the godhead.” It is further expounded how Brahman as manas has as his four feet the cosmical organs, speech, breath, eye, ear, and similarly as âkâs'a the cosmical gods, fire, wind, sun, and the heavenly regions. A passing attempt to elevate the manas (the will) into a universal principle has been elsewhere cited.¹ Unfortunately the attempt is not carried any further, but the manas is allowed to remain a mere symbol of Brahman. Besides our passage, Chând. 7. 3 may be quoted, where the manas occurs as the third of the symbols there enumerated, beyond which there is a still higher; and Bṛih. 4. 1. 6, where the upanishad mano vai brahma is attributed to Satyakâma (inconsistently with the instruction given to him in Chând. 4. 9. 3), and is regarded as inadequate. By the side of the manas the passage quoted above names the âkâśa (ether, space;

c9.s3.t3.1.2

strictly speaking, space conceived as a material element) as a symbol of Brahman (for an alternative and parallel explanation of it as Brahman can only be intended to be understood symbolically), no doubt on account of the omnipresence of space; just as a passage often quoted by Śankara but not yet identified says of Brahman that he is âkâśavat sarvagataś ca nityaḥ “omnipresent like space, eternal,” and Newton designated space the sensorium of God, while Kant a century later showed the god, whose sensorium space is, to be the intellect (manas) in our inner self. In older texts of the Upanishads, âkâśa (space) is frequently explained to be Brahman, without any clear consciousness that this representation is merely symbolical. Chând. 1. 9. 1:— “It is the âkâśa, out of which all these creatures proceed, and into which they are again received, the âkâśa is older than they all, the âkâśa is the ultimate end.” Bâdarâyaṇa is right in asserting¹ that by the âkâśa here Brahman is to be understood, “because his characteristics” are found. So also in Bṛih. 5. 1. 1, in an appendix containing much that is old:—“Om! the firmament is Brahman, the primeval, air-filled firmament.” And again probably in Chând. 3. 12. 7-9:—“This so-called Brahman is the same as yonder space without man; and yonder space without man is the same as this space within man; and this space within man is the same as this space within the heart.

c9.s3.t3.1.3

That is the perfect, the immutable.” It was soon, however, felt that the representation of Brahman as âkâśa could only be tolerated in a symbolical sense. Gârgya, in Bṛih. 2. 1. 5,² explains the spirit in space as Brahman, and the answer is given (obviously directed against the passage from Chând. 3. 12. 9 just cited), that it is only “the full, the immutable.” In Chând. 4. 10. 5 kham (space) is playfully identified with kam (= ânanda, bliss). In Chând. 3. 18. 1, âkâśa is, as we saw, only in a symbolic sense together with manas admitted as Brahman as an object of worship. Thus in Chând. 7. 12 the âkâśa appears as a mere symbol, beyond which there is a greater; and in Chând. 8. 1. 1, characteristically diverging from the above quoted passage Chând. 3. 12. 7–9, it is no longer a question of regarding space in the universe as Brahman, or space in the heart, but that which is within this space (tasmin yad antar). We are unable therefore to agree with Bâdarâyaṇa when, in the student's benediction Chând. 8. 14, he proposes to understand Brahman by the âkâśa. The meaning rather is, perhaps intentionally, directed against such an interpretation :—The âkâśa is that (only) which holds asunder name and form; that which is in these two (te yad antarâ), that is Brahman, that is the immortal, that is the âtman. That is to say, Brahman has been expanded into names and forms, according to Chând. 6. 3. 3. The most decided polemic however against a confusion of âkâśa and Brahman is in Bṛih. 3.

c9.s3.t3.1.4

7. 12 :—“He who, dwelling in the âkâśa, is distinct from âkâśa, whom the âkâśa knows not, whose body the âkâśa is, who rules the âkâśa from within, he is thy soul, the inner guide, the immortal.”¹

c9.s3.t3.2

¹ *Einleitung und Philosophie des Veda*, p. 206; for an estimate of this conception we refer to the discussion there.

c9.s3.t3.3

¹ Sûtr. 1. 1. 22, âkâśas tal-liṅgât.

c9.s3.t3.4

² cp. Kaush. 4. 8.

c9.s3.t3.5

¹ cp. also Bṛih. 3. 8. 11, 4. 4. 17, 20.

c9.s3.t3.6

As early as the period preceding the Upanishads we were able to discern a series of attempts to regard the first principle of the universe as inherent in the sun, but at the same time by means of metaphorical interpretations to advance beyond this conception as being merely symbolical. These attempts were continued in the Upanishads. In Kaush. 2. 7 a ceremony is taught, which by means of a worship of the rising mid-day and setting sun delivers from all sin committed by day or by night. Chând. 3. 19. 1 enjoins in addition the worship of the sun as Brahman; and that this representation is merely symbolic appears from what follows, where the sun is regarded not as the original creative principle, but, falling back upon representations discussed elsewhere,¹ as the first-born of creation. With the attempts to which reference is there made to interpret these views of Brahman as the sun, and to see in the natural light a symbol merely of the spiritual light, is to be classed especially the paragraph Chând. 3. 1–11, which undertakes on a larger scale to depict Brahman as the sun of the universe, and the natural sun as the phenomenal form of this Brahman. It may be regarded as a further endeavour to penetrate beyond the symbol to the substance when, in a series of passages, it is no longer the sun, but the *purusha* (man, spirit) in the sun, and the corresponding *purusha* in the eye that is described as Brahman. In Chând. 1. 6–7 it is said in an adaptation of the Udgîtha (which the Udgâtar had to sing); as the Udgâtar is lord over *ṛic* and *sâman*, so over the cosmical gods is lord “the golden man (*purusha*), who is seen within the sun with golden beard and golden hair, altogether of gold to the finger-tips”; and over the psychical gods “the man who is seen within the eye.” The former is lord over the worlds which lie beyond the sun, and over the desires of the gods; the latter over the worlds which lie on this side of the eye (therefore within man), and over the desires of men. According to Mahânâr. 13, the *ṛic*, *sâman*, and *yajus* (and therefore the Brahman embodied in the Veda) are compared to the orb of the sun, its flame, and the *purusha* in this flame,—“as this triple knowledge does he gleam, who as golden *purusha* is therein in the sun”; while the identity of this *purusha* with that in men has been already asserted in Taitt. 2. 8:² “He who dwells here in men and that one yonder in the sun are the same." This thought is further developed in Bṛih. 5. 5, where among other things it is said:—"Yonder man who is in the orb of the sun, and this man who is in the right eye, these two depend on one another. The former depends by its rays on the latter, and this by the breath of life on the former. This one, when he determines to go forth, gazes at that orb of the sun pure (from rays); those rays do not interfere with him." Accordingly in Bṛih. 5. 15¹ the dying man entreats the sun:—"Disperse thy rays, concentrate thy splendour; yea, I see thee, thou lovely form; and he there, that man there, I am he himself." A similar conception underlies the explanation of themselves given in Chând. 4. 11–13 by the three sacrificial fires in their instruction of Upakosala as the man in the sun, the moon, and the lightning; whereupon the teacher in a subsequent correction remarks:—"They have told you only its environment, but I will tell you its real nature . . . the man who is seen in the eye, he is the âtman—thus he spake,—he is the immortal, the fearless, he is Brahman." Sun, moon, and lightning are, as he further shows, only the uppermost stations of the way of the gods, by which "the man who is not as a man" (puruṣo 'mânavah) guides the soul to eternal union with Brahman. These views are apparently criticised in Kaush. 4,² when Gârgya among his sixteen definitions of Brahman proposes the man in the sun, the moon, the lightning, and the right eye, and is therefore turned away by Ajâtas'atru.

c9.s3.t3.7

¹ *Allgemeine Geschichte*, I, 1. pp. 253, 251.

c9.s3.t3.8

² cp. also Taitt. 3. 10.

c9.s3.t3.9

¹ cp. also Îs'â 16.

c9.s3.t3.10

² cp. Bṛih. 2. 1.

c9.s3.t3.11

Prâṇa, manas, âkâs'a, and âditya are the most important symbols under which the worship of Brahman is enjoined. Theoretically, indeed, all the objects of worship recognised and enumerated in Chând. 7. 1–15, viz.—nâman, vâc', manas, saṅkalpa, c'ittam, dhyânam, vijñâ- nam, balam, annam, âpas, tejas, âkâs'a, smara, âs'â, prâna are to be regarded as such; and the modes of representation of Brahman as vâc', prâna, c'akshus, s'rotram, manas, hridayam, which in Brih. 4. 1 are treated as imperfect and yet are not rejected, stand in a similar position, and so also annam, prâna, c'akshus, s'rotram, manas in Taitt. 3. 1. The warmth of the body and the buzzing in the ear do duty also as symbols of Brahman on the ground of Chând. 3. 13. 7–8, where it is said of the light which is above the heaven and at the same time within men, i.e. of Brahman :—" His sight is that here in the body when he is touched a warmth is felt; his hearing is that when the ears are kept closed there is heard, as it were, a humming like a crackling as of a roaring fire. This ought we to worship as his sight and his hearing." Just as the section from which this passage is taken stands in a peculiar, still unexplained relation to the doctrine of the âtman vais'vânara and the prânâgnihotram connected with it,¹ so the parallel doctrine of the agni vais'vânara² is attached to a cognate expression in Brih. 5. 9, which traces back the buzzing in the ear and the fire of digestion to the vais'vânara fire in men (just as in Chând. 3. 13. 7–8 the humming in the ear and the bodily warmth is traced to the Brahman fire in men). Both amount essentially to the same thing, since, according to the doctrine of the prânâgnihotra (which will have to be further considered later on), digestion is a consumption of the sacrificial food by the fire of prâna; and this we have already learnt to recognise as a symbol of Brahman.

c9.s3.t3.12

¹ Chând. 5. 11–24.

c9.s3.t3.13

² S'atap. Br. 10. 6. 1.

c9.s3.t3.14

Among the symbols by which the suprasensible Brahman is represented to sentient perception is finally to be reckoned the sacred syllable om, which of all the symbols came to be the most important and fruitful. It was closely connected with the yoga practice, one of the most peculiar phenomena of Indian religious life, which later on will claim consecutive treatment.

4. Attempts to interpret the Symbolical Representations of Brahman

c9.s3.t4.1

It is a weighty saying, that we must not put new wine into old wine-skins. But this requirement (like so many other of the requirements of Jesus) is on too lofty a plane, too unpractical, takes too little account of human relations and weaknesses, to be capable of more than approximate fulfilment. For it lies in the nature of things, that advance in the religious sphere can never be simple and absolute, but rather that by the side of the newer and better that which is old and dead must ever be still preserved, because it is regarded as something sacred. We shall see later how entirely Christianity was compelled to put its new wine into the old skins. Philosophy pursues a somewhat more untrammelled course. External liberty, however, is still not internal; and even in the course of development of the newer philosophy from Cartesius to Kant and onwards (to the greatest of all the battles for freedom that mankind has ever waged), we are only too often reminded of Goethe's grasshopper "that ever flits, and flitting leaps, and still in the grass sings its old song."

c9.s3.t4.2

It was exactly the same in India. Those symbolical representations of Brahman as prâṇa, âkâśa, etc. were too deeply rooted in the consciousness for it to be possible to throw them overboard without further trouble. There followed a series of attempts to preserve the symbols, while combining with them a truer conception of Brahman. The section Kaush. 3-4 is especially typical of this method of procedure. The important fact, taught principally by Yâjñavalkhya, and perhaps first grasped by him, that Brahman, the âtman, must be sought above all in the knowing subject, *i.e.* in the consciousness (*prajñâ*), had found a place alike in the schools of the Sâmaveda,¹ and in those of the Rigveda; although the latter, to judge from Ait. Âr. 2. 1–2, adhered especially closely to the symbolic representation of Brahman as prâṇa. While, however, amongst the Aitareyins the new knowledge of Brahman as *prajñâ* (consciousness) is attached immediately to this representation,² the Kaush. Up. endeavours to effect a reconciliation of the two by means of the equation, prâṇa = prajñâ. Kaush. 3 shows in a better way how the objects of sense are dependent on the organs of sense, and the latter in turn on the consciousness (*prajñâ*, *prajñâtman*). But like a false note there runs through the whole the assertion put forward again and again:—“What however the prâṇa is, that is the prajñâ, and what the prajñâ is, that is the prâṇa.” The sole reason advanced for this bold identification is,—“for both dwell united in the body, and united depart out of it.”³ A similar attempt to identify the prâṇa and the *âkâśa*, and both with *ânanda*, “bliss,” which forms the essence of Brahman, is found in Chând. 4. 10. 5:—“Brahman is life (*prâṇa*), Brahman is joy (*kam* = *ânanda*), Brahman is the expanse (*kham* = *âkâśa*); to which the fires that impart this instruction add in explanation:—“In truth, the expanse, that is the joy, and the joy, that is the expanse”; and they expound to him how that Brahman is life and the broad expanse. A still more comprehensive blending of symbols with reality is undertaken by the very complex paragraph, Bṛih. 2. 3. Here “two forms” of Brahman are distinguished, the material (mortal, abiding, existing), and the immaterial (immortal, departing, other-worldly). (1) The material Brahman is physical nature and the human body; the sun and the eye are its essence. (2) The immaterial Brahman is vâyu and âkâs'a, prâna and the void in man; the purusha in the sun and the eye is its essence. Thus far therefore we are dealing with the symbolical. But this is abruptly transcended when the purusha is further identified by means of the famous formula of Yâjñavalkhya neti neti and the upanishad satyasya satyam borrowed from Br̥ih. 2. 1. 20 with the unknowable super-essential Brahman. A similar blending virtually takes place in Br̥ih. 3. 7, when vâyu-prâna as the world-thread (sûtram) and the âtman as the inner guide (antaryâmin) are discussed in the same context, and are therefore probably identified. The prayer of the student also in Taitt. 1. 1¹ is remarkable, because a perfectly clear consciousness of the symbolical representation of Brahman by vâyu is therein expressed :—" Reverence to Brahman! Reverence to thee, Vâyu! for thou art the visible Brahman, thee will I recognise as the visible Brahman." In later texts prâna has become occasionally a synonym for âtman, as in Kâṭh. 6. 2; or is made dependent on the latter, as in Pras'na 3. 3, where the prâna (perhaps following R̥igv. X. 121. 2, Kâṭh. 3. 1, and anticipating the "reflection" between souls and objects in the Sânkhya philosophy) is described as the copy or shadow (c'hâyâ) of the âtman. It was reserved for the reactionary spirit of the Maitr. Up. 6. 1-8 to rehabilitate prâna and âditya, and to enlarge upon their identity as well as the manner of their worship in tedious speculations.

c9.s3.t4.3

¹ Chând. 8. 12. 4, Kena 1–8.

c9.s3.t4.4

² Ait. Up. 3 = Ait. Âr. 2. 6.

c9.s3.t4.5

³ Kaush. 3. 4.

c9.s3.t4.6

¹ cp. also I. 12.

5. Appendix: Interpretations of and Substitutes for Ritual Practices

c9.s3.t5.1

The partial interpretation in the oldest parts of the Upanishads of certain ritual conceptions and practices which are deeply rooted in consciousness in the light of the doctrine of Brahman, and the partial substitution for them of new ceremonies more in harmony with the spirit of the new doctrine, is related to the symbolic view of Brahman. We propose briefly to indicate the leading characteristics on both sides.

c9.s3.t5.2

That India more than any other country is the land of symbols is owing to the nature of Indian thought, which applied itself to the most abstruse problems before it was even remotely in a position to treat them intelligently. As early as the period of the Brâhmaṇas the separate acts of the ritual were frequently regarded as symbols, whose allegorical meaning embraced a wider range. But the Āraṇyakas were the peculiar arena of these allegorical expositions. In harmony with their prevailing purpose, to offer to the Vānaprastha an equivalent for the sacrificial observances, for the most part no longer practicable, they indulge in mystical interpretations of these, which are then followed up in the oldest Upanishads. In the latter we often see the fundamental conception of the ātman doctrine appearing in symbolical guise, and we should be disposed to trace in allegorical speculations of this nature the earliest origin of the Upanishad doctrine. That it is not so, that the doctrine of the ātman as the sole reality has not been developed originally from ritualistic conceptions, but was adapted to them first in later times, we have inferred above (p. 17 ff.) from the tradition surviving still in numerous instances in the Upanishads, that it was kings, i.e. Kshatriyas, from whom the Brāhmans first received the most important elements of the ātman doctrine. This they then appropriated in their own way, combining it in allegorical fashion with the entirely heterogeneous methods of the ritual. This view finds an unexpected but all the more valuable confirmation in the manner in which the different schools of the Veda arrived at the conception of the ātman, or the prāṇa as its precursor. It is evidenced, that is to say, by the fact that each Veda starts from the ritual service peculiar to it, the adherents of the Rigveda from the uktham, those of the Sâmaveda from the udgîtha, and the schools of the white Yajurveda from the aśvamedha, in order by a symbolical interpretation to arrive at the conception of the prâṇa or âtman. It is however inconceivable that the âtman doctrine should have originated on so different yet parallel lines of development, while the facts are completely explained on the supposition that the doctrine of the prâṇa-âtman was taken over from another source, and harmonised by each school to the best of its ability with the ruling ideas of its ritual. This we propose to illustrate by a few examples.

c9.s3.t5.3

The chief function of the priests of the Rigveda is the recitation of the śastram (hymn of praise), which was chosen for the purpose on each occasion from the hymns of the Rigveda. The uktham however is “the most beautiful, most famous, most potent among the śastras.”¹ This is identified by the Aitareyins under several allegorical forms with the prâṇa;² while the Kaushîtakins identify the uktham with Brahman (materialised in ṛic, yajus, sâman).³ As the priests of the Rigveda regarded the uktham as the climax of their service, so those of the Sâmaveda looked upon the chanting of the udgîtha, which was similarly identified with the syllable om, the prâṇa, the sun, or the purusha in the sun and the eye; while in Chând. 2 the complete sâman, whose climax is formed by the chanting of the udgîtha, is compared with various cosmical and psychical conditions. The early portions of the Upanishad-Brâhmaṇa, which including the Kena Upan., belongs to the Talavakâra school of the Sâmaveda, is concerned with allegories of an entirely similar character. For the priests of the Yajurveda who are entrusted with the carrying out of the sacred rites a similar part is taken by the act of sacrifice itself, and here again also it is the highest of all the sacrificial observances, viz. the horse-sacrifice (*aśvamedha*), with which Bṛh. 1. 1-2 begins, in order to recognise in the steed the universe, into which Prajâpati is transformed with the object of again offering himself in sacrifice. In Taitt. Saṃh. 7. 5. 25 also this allegorical interpretation of the horse of the sacrifice as the universe is found, and in Taitt. Up. 1. 5 in a different way the interdict of the sacrificial animal is broken through, in that a fourth sacred word of the sacrifice *mahas*, which must denote Brahman, is added to the three *bhûr bhuvaḥ svar*, which are interpreted as earth, atmosphere and heaven. The remaining schools of the Yajurveda appear to have started in their allegorising from another aspect of the cult, from the disposal of the sacred fire-altars, as may be inferred from Kâṭh. 1 and Maitr. 1. 1.¹ Throughout, however, we see how the ritual representations are, according to the Vedic schools themselves, only different means whereby expression may be given under an allegorical garb to thoughts common to all.

c9.s3.t5.4

¹ Kaush. 2. 6.

c9.s3.t5.5

² Ait. Âr. 2. 1–3.

c9.s3.t5.6

³ Kaush. 2. 6.

c9.s3.t5.7

¹ cp. Maitr. 6. 33.

c9.s3.t5.8

Of other allegorical interpretations we will cite further only that of the *Gâyatrî*, the first in order of Vedic metres, consisting of three feet (◡-◡-◡-◡, thrice repeated), to which an imaginary fourth was afterwards added. In this quadrupedal form the Gâyatrî is a symbol of Brahman, who is likewise four-footed. Later on we shall have to consider this four-footed character of Brahman, and its connection with the four states of the soul, waking, dreaming, deep sleep, and *turîya*. In their manner of treatment of the symbolic Gâyatrî the two chief texts adopt entirely different methods. According to Chând. 3. 12, the text of the Veda and all created things, the earth, the body, the heart, and the vital organs, these six form the one sixfold foot of the Gâyatrî, and the three remaining feet² are immortal in heaven, and are symbolised by space, the physical body and heart; in Bṛih. 5. 14, on the contrary, three feet of the Gâyatrî appear under a material form as the worlds, the vedas, and the vital breaths, while only the fourth (turîya) is transcendent, and finds expression symbolically in the sun, the eye, truth, power, and life.

c9.s3.t5.9

² With reference to Ṛigv. X. 90, 3.

c9.s3.t5.10

In this way on the rise of the new teaching an attempt was made to preserve the traditional heirlooms of the ritual, while transforming them into symbols of the âtman doctrine. Soon however men went further, and endeavoured to supersede the most important of the traditional observances by other ceremonies adapted to the teaching concerning the âtman. In Bṛih. 3. 1, for example, for the four priests (hotar, adhvaryu, udgâtar, brâhman) the four cosmical and the corresponding psychical phenomenal forms of the âtman are substituted (as fire and speech, sun and eye, wind and breath, moon and manas), and instead of the usual rewards there was introduced union with the âtman as realised in the universe. Similarly in Chând. 4. 16. 2, instead of the brâhman his manas is introduced, and instead of the hotar, adhvaryu, and udgâtar, the vâc' embodied in them.

c9.s3.t5.11

A further attempt to transcend the sacrificial ritual is found in the conception of the man himself and his life as an act of service. Thus in Chând. 3. 16 the three periods of human life appear in place of the three bruisings of the Soma, and in a different way in Chând. 3. 17 the functions of hungering, eating, begetting, etc., replace the chief acts of the Soma sacrifice. In detail this thought is carried out by assigning the different organs and functions to the requirements and acts of the sacrifice,¹ and elsewhere with still greater elaboration.²

c9.s3.t5.12

¹ Mahân. 64.

c9.s3.t5.13

² Prâṇâgnih. Upan. 3–4.

c9.s3.t5.14

Finally, in many of the instances enumerated it remains doubtful whether it is intended merely to interpret allegorically the still existing sacrificial cult, or to set it aside and replace it by physical and psychical conditions. The latter is distinctly the case with the last and most important phenomenon that we have to notice, where the agnihotram is replaced by the *prāṇa-agnihotram*.

c9.s3.t5.15

The agnihotram, consisting in a twice repeated libation of boiled milk, which was poured into the fire every morning at sunrise and at sunset every evening, and thus was offered to the gods, and with them to all beings, had to be maintained throughout his life (*yāvaj-jīvam*) by the man who had once entered into the estate of a householder. After the *prāṇa*, indwelling in us all, had been introduced in place of the gods, the attempt was made to replace the agnihotram or fire-sacrifice by a *prāṇa-agnihotram*, a sacrifice offered in the fire of *prāṇa*. The continual inspiration and exspiration necessary for the maintenance of life (*prāṇa*) might be regarded as such. A first trace of this idea may be found in the words of Bṛh. 1. 5. 23:—"Therefore if a man would observe a vow, he should inhale and exhale and wish, 'May not evil or death seize me.'"¹ This "inner agnihotram"² occurs with a more developed character and a clearer repudiation of the agnihotram cult in Kaush. Up. 2. 5:—"These two sacrifices (of inspiration and speech, *i.e.* exspiration³) are endless and immortal; for whether awake or asleep they are continually being offered. The other sacrifices, on the contrary, are limited, for they consist of works. Therefore the wise men of old (who in the Upanishads are cited quite commonly as authority when novel ideas are introduced) did not offer the agnihotram." Like the breathing here, so the nutrition of the body also might be conceived as a sacrifice offered in the fire of digestion (identified in Bṛih. 5. 9 with the *agni vaiśvānara*), and be substituted for the traditional agnihotram. Here also is found the first trace of the thought in Bṛih. 1. 5. 2:—"For all food which he (who knows this) consumes, that he presents (to the ātman and through it) to the gods." An amplified description of this new kind of agnihotram appears first in Chând. 5. 19–24. There is no further need of a specially prepared milk offering, "whatever food is nearest to hand, that is suitable for sacrifice."¹ Sacrifice is offered also in the *āhavanīya* fire of the mouth, since the five libations, of which this sacrifice presented to the prāṇa consists, viz.—the inspiration, interspiration, exspiration, the all- and up-breathing, and with them the corresponding five organs of sense, are for the benefit of the five nature gods and the five world spheres.² In a neighbouring passage the rinsing of the mouth customary before and after eating is conceived as a swathing of the prāṇa with water.³ Both acts, the nourishing and the swathing of the prāṇa (with obvious reference to Chând. 5. 24), are connected together, and provided with corresponding rules in Maitr. 6. 9. According to this passage also, the customary agnihotram seems to be superseded by the prāṇāgnihotram (*ātman eva yajati*), while in the appendix Maitr. 6. 34 both are preserved side by side in that the agnihotram restored to its rightful position is conceived as the "openly made" *prāṇāgnihotram*. A final step in this development is indicated in the Prāṇāgn. Up. 1–2, which, presupposing apparently all the passages just quoted, declares the customary agnihotram to be superfluous, and for the prāṇāgnihotram prescribes a minutely elaborated ritual.

First 74 of 87 passages. Read on

Linked texts (25)