The Philosophy of the Upanishads c9.s3.t3.1

Language: English

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