Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Philosophy of the Upanishads c9.s5: V. Brahman and the Universe

The Philosophy of the Upanishads c9.s5

Language
English

Contents

V. Brahman and the Universe

1. Sole Reality of Brahman

c9.s5.t1.1

Brahman is the âtman, "the self," is that in men and in all the objects of the universe which remains over when we abstract from them everything in them that is not-self, alien or different. There is however in the whole universe, alike in heaven and on earth, nothing besides the âtman:—"There is no second outside of him, no other distinct from him."¹ "There is here no plurality at all,"² and consequently there can be no question of anything existing outside of the âtman, of a universe in the proper sense of the term. With the knowledge of the âtman therefore everything is known:—"In truth, he who has seen, heard, comprehended and known the âtman, by him is this entire universe known,"³ just as with the sounding of the drum, the conch-horn or the lyre, all the notes, as it were, of these instruments are already coincidently sounded.⁴ The doctrine of the âtman is that very instruction, which was asked for in Chând. 6. 1. 2:—"by which (even) the unheard becomes (already) heard, the uncomprehended comprehended, the unknown known"; the âtman is "that with the knowledge of which this entire universe becomes known."⁵ As from a lump of clay all that consists of clay is known, from an ingot of copper all that consists of copper, from a pair of nail-scissors all that consists of iron,—"the change is a mere matter of words, nothing but a name,"—so with the knowledge of the âtman all is known.¹ The distinguishing essence of the fire, the sun, the moon and the lightning has vanished, the change is a mere matter of words, nothing but a name.² This was recognised by the ancient seers when they said:—"No longer now can anyone bring before us anything which we have not (already) heard, understood and known."³ Therefore for him who knows the âtman the unknown is only "as it were" (iva) unknown;⁴ there is only "as it were" a duality,⁵ "as it were" another,⁶ "as it were" a plurality,⁷ and it happens only "as it were" that the âtman imagines an object or is moved towards it.⁸ Strictly speaking, such an "as it were" or iva should be supplied to every page and every line in which the Upanishads are concerned with something other than the âtman. It is however very easily understood that this is not always done. And just as Parmenides and Plato, without thereby involving themselves in self-contradiction, regard the very universe, whose reality they deny, from that standpoint of experience which is natural to us all as though it were real; so we are not to discover a contradiction when the teachers of the Upanishads occasionally regard and treat the universe as real from the standpoint of realism, of avidyâ, where indeed we all begin and on which all practical living is based, so long as in the background of consciousness the conviction remains unmoved of the sole reality of the âtman, and thence determines, even if only tacitly, all the thoughts. Probably however a contradiction was introduced when and in proportion as the realistic view implanted in us all by the nature of our intellect so completely gained the upper hand that the fundamental conception of the Vedânta of the sole reality of the âtman became obscured by it. Wherever this occurs in the Upanishads the original standpoint of the Vedânta is abandoned, and another standpoint prevails, that of the later Sânkhya system, whose primary origin we shall have to look for in that realistic tendency of the mental constitution of man which can never be entirely suppressed, and whose origin and gradual accession of strength within the sphere of the Upanishad doctrine itself we shall have to consider and trace out in a later connection.

c9.s5.t1.2

¹ Bṛih. 4. 3. 23-30.

c9.s5.t1.3

² na iha nânâ asti kiñc'ana, Bṛih. 4. 4. 19, Kâṭh. 4. 10-11.

c9.s5.t1.4

³ Bṛih. 2. 4. 5.

c9.s5.t1.5

⁴ Bṛih. 2. 4. 7-9.

c9.s5.t1.6

⁵ Muṇḍ. 1. 1. 3.

c9.s5.t1.7

¹ Chând. 6. 1. 3–5.

c9.s5.t1.8

² Chând. 6. 4. 1–4.

c9.s5.t1.9

³ Chând. 6. 4. 5.

c9.s5.t1.10

⁴ Chând. 6. 4. 7.

c9.s5.t1.11

⁵ dvaitam iva, Bṛih. 2. 4. 14.

c9.s5.t1.12

⁶ Bṛih. 4. 3. 31.

c9.s5.t1.13

⁷ nânâ iva, Bṛih. 4. 4. 19, Kâṭh. 4. 10, 11.

c9.s5.t1.14

⁸ dhyáyati iva, leláyati iva, Bṛih. 4. 3. 7.

c9.s5.t1.15

For the moment however we turn aside from this, and hold fast to the pure and original Upanishad doctrine, that it is the standpoint of avidyâ which we take up when we proceed now to consider Brahman in his relations to the universe, (1) as the cosmical principle, (2) as the psychical principle, and (3) as a personal god (îśvara).

2. Brahman as the Cosmical Principle

c9.s5.t2.1

The relation of the first principle of things to created nature, or to use popular language, of God to the universe, is a problem which can never be completely solved, for a solution is excluded by the constitution of our intellectual powers. In proportion as we attempt to understand that relation—that is, to conceive it under the categories of our intellect, space, time and causality—we fall into an erroneous, or to put it more mildly into a figurative representation of the facts; and in proportion as we endeavour to rise above a mere figurative representation we are compelled to relinquish a real understanding. Four stages may be distinguished in the comprehension of that problem, which we may describe, at first in general and with reservation of their special application to India, as realism, theism, pantheism and idealism.

c9.s5.t2.2

(1) *Realism.*—Matter exists independently of God, and from eternity. God is degraded to a mere world-fashioner (δημιουργός), or, so far as creative power is transferred to matter itself, is altogether set aside, as in the Sânkhya.

c9.s5.t2.3

(2) *Theism.*—God creates the universe out of nothing, and the latter then has a real existence independently of God. This is the standpoint of the Old Testament. As soon as the attempt is seriously made to grasp the relation of God to the universe, in proportion as this takes place God becomes more and more entangled in the universe, until He is completely merged in it and disappears. Theism degenerates into pantheism, which is its necessary consequence. The later philosophy furnishes an example. After Descartes had attempted to formulate in logical terms the theism of the Middle Ages which was based on the Old Testament, we see how, under the hands of his successors Geulincx and Malebranche, God is more and more absorbed into the universe until finally He becomes completely identified with it. The same thing occurs in the pantheism of Spinoza. It is remarkable that this decisive refutation of that Biblical view of the universe which originated from Judaism and was adopted in the Middle Ages was effected by a Jew.

c9.s5.t2.4

(3) *Pantheism.*—God creates the universe by transforming himself into the universe. The latter confessedly has become God. Since it is real and also infinite, there is no room for God independently of the universe, but only within it. The terms God and universe become synonymous, and the idea of God is only retained in order not to break with tradition.

c9.s5.t2.5

(4) *Idealism.*—God alone and nothing besides him is real. The universe as regards its extension in space and bodily consistence is in truth not real; it is mere illusion, as used to be said, mere appearance, as we say to-day. This appearance is not God as in pantheism, but the reflection of God, and is an aberration from the divine essence. Not as though God were to be sought on the other side of the universe, for he is not at all in space; nor as though he were before or after, for he is not at all in time; nor as though he were the cause of the universe, for the law of causality has no application here. Rather, to the extent to which the universe is regarded as real, God is without reality. That he is real, nay the sole reality, we perceive only so far as we succeed in shaking ourselves free theoretically and practically from this entire world of appearance.

c9.s5.t2.6

All these stages are represented in the teaching of the Upanishads, and thus it presents a very varied colouring of idealistic, pantheistic or theistic shades without becoming contradictory in the proper sense of the term. For the fundamental thought, that is held fast at least as a principle at all stages, even at the lowest which maintains the independent existence of matter, is the conviction of the sole reality of the âtman; only that side by side with and in spite of this conviction more or less far-reaching concessions were made to the empirical consciousness of the reality of the universe, that could never be entirely cast off; and thus the universe disowned by the fundamental idealistic view of the sole reality of the âtman was yet again partially rehabilitated. This was effected either by regarding it pantheistically as an apparition of the only real âtman, or theistically as created by and out of the âtman, but yet contrasted with it as separate, or realistically as prakṛiti occupying from the very beginning an independent position by the side of the purusha, although in a certain sense dependent on the latter. Of the theistic conception, and the realistic that paved the way for the Sânkhya, both of which make their appearance only occasionally, we shall have to speak in a later connection. Here we propose in the first instance to enter upon the fundamental idealistic view, in order to show how by accommodation to the empirical consciousness, which regards the universe as real, it passes over into the pantheistic doctrine, which is the prevailing one in the Upanishads.

c9.s5.t2.7

Strongly idealistic, and at the same time expressing most clearly the peculiar spirit of the Upanishad teaching, are the passages which declare that with the knowledge of the âtman all is known,¹ and which accordingly deny a universe of plurality.² But with this thought a height was reached on which a prolonged stay was impracticable. Passages therefore of this kind are comparatively rare. The universe was still something existing; it lay there before their eyes. It was necessary to endeavour to find a way back to it. This was accomplished without abandoning the fundamental idealistic principle, by conceding the reality of the manifold universe, but at the same time maintaining that this manifold universe is in reality Brahman.³ Idealism therefore entered into alliance with the realistic view natural to us, and became thereby pantheism. This was the case already in the definition of Brahman as satyasya satyam, “the reality of reality.”⁴ The universe is reality (satyam), but the real in it is Brahman alone. The same is true when in Chând. 6. 1 f. the rise of the manifold universe from the sole existing one is traced in a realistic manner, accompanied by the repeated assurance that all these changes are “dependent on words, a mere name.” With this are connected the numerous passages which celebrate Brahman as the active principle through the entire universe:—"He is all-effecting, all-wishing, all-smelling, all-tasting, embracing all, silent, untroubled."¹ "The âtman is beneath and above, in the west and in the east, in the south and in the north; the âtman is this entire universe."² The sun rises from him, and sets again in him.³ All the regions of the sky are his organs,⁴ the four quarters of the universe (east, west, south, north), the four divisions of the universe (earth, air, sky, ocean), the four lights of the universe (fire, sun, moon, lightning), and the four vital breaths (breath, eye, ear, manas), are his sixteen parts.⁵

c9.s5.t2.8

¹ Bṛih. 2. 4. 5, Chând. 6. 1. 2, Muṇḍ. 1. 1. 3.

c9.s5.t2.9

² na iha nânâ asti kiñc'ana, Bṛih. 4. 4. 19, Kâṭh. 4. 10–11.

c9.s5.t2.10

³ sarvam khalu idam brahma, Chând. 3. 14. 1.

c9.s5.t2.11

⁴ Bṛih. 2. 1. 20.

c9.s5.t2.12

¹ Chând. 3. 14. 2.

c9.s5.t2.13

² Chând. 7. 25. 2; imitated in Muṇḍ. 2. 2. 11.

c9.s5.t2.14

³ Bṛih. 1. 5. 23, Kâṭh. 4. 9, and similarly as early as Atharvav. X. 8. 16.

c9.s5.t2.15

⁴ Bṛih. 4. 2. 4.

c9.s5.t2.16

⁵ Chând. 4. 4–9.

c9.s5.t2.17

Fire is his head, his eyes sun and moon,
His ears the regions of the sky,
The revealed Veda is his voice,
The wind his breath, the universe his heart, from his feet is the earth,
He is the inmost self in all things.⁶

c9.s5.t2.18

⁶ Muṇḍ. 2. 1. 4.

c9.s5.t2.19

In what manner however is the relation of Brahman to this his evolution as the manifold universe to be conceived? We should say:—As identity, in this following the later Vedânta, which appeals to the word used to express attachment.⁷ But this word is a mere makeshift; there is still always a broad distinction between the one Brahman and the multiplicity of his appearances, nor were ancient thinkers or indeed any thinkers before Kant able to rise to the conception that the entire unfolding in space and time was a merely subjective phenomenon. Here a further concession must be made to the empirical consciousness, tied down as it is to space, time and causality. Brahman was regarded as the cause antecedent in time, and the universe as the effect proceeding from it; the inner dependence of the universe on Brahman and its essential identity with him was represented as a creation of the universe by and out of Brahman. We find ourselves at a point where we apprehend the creation theories of the Upanishads, unintelligible as they are from the standpoint of its idealism, from an unconscious accommodation to the forms of our intellectual capacity. The further elaboration of the doctrine of the creation of the universe will occupy us in the chapter on the Cosmology. Here only a few passages need be quoted, which set before us the essential identity of the created universe with the creator. "Just as the spider by means of its threads goes forth from itself (*tantunâ uc'caret*), as from the fire the tiny sparks fly out, so from this âtman all the spirits of life spring forth, all worlds, all gods, all living beings."¹ The illustrations of the spider and the fire are further elaborated in Muṇḍ. 1. 1. 7 and 2. 1. 1:—

c9.s5.t2.20

⁷ Chând. 6. 1. 3; Sûtra 2. 1. 14, tad-ananyatvam, ârambhaṇa-s'abda-âdibhyaḥ.

c9.s5.t2.21

¹ Bṛih. 2. 1. 20.

c9.s5.t2.22

As a spider ejects and retracts (the threads),
As the plants shoot forth on the earth,
As the hairs on the head and body of the living man,
So from the imperishable all that is here.

As the sparks from the well-kindled fire,
In nature akin to it, spring forth in their thousands;
So, my dear sir, from the imperishable
Living beings of many kinds go forth,
And again return into him.

c9.s5.t2.23

That the material substance of things also is derived solely from Brahman is taught in connection with the illustration of the spider in S'vet. 6. 10, where Brahman is described as the god "who spiderlike by threads which proceed from him as material (*pradhânam*) concealed his real nature.” The last words mean that Brahman, by not (in a theistic sense) bringing objects forth from himself, but (in a pantheistic sense) changing himself into the objects, “has concealed his real nature” (*svabhâvato . . . svam âvṛiṇot*). In this sense it is said as early as Ṛigveda X. 81. 1 that Vis’vakarman by his entrance into the lower world was “concealing his original state” (*prathamach’had*). Similarly Bṛih. 1. 4. 7 declares that the âtman has “entered” into this universe “up to the finger-tips, as a knife is hidden in its sheath, or the all-sustaining fire in the fire-preserving (wood). Therefore is he not seen; for he is divided; as breathing he is named breath, as speaking speech, as seeing eye,” etc. According to Bṛih. 1. 6. 3, the âtman is *amṛitam satyena c’hannam*, “the immortal, concealed by (empirical) reality”; and in Bṛih. 2. 4. 12 it is said:—“It is with him as with a lump of salt, which thrown into the water is lost in the water, so that it is not possible to take it out again; whence however we may always draw, it is salt throughout.” The same thought is developed, perhaps on the basis of this passage in the narrative of Chând. 6. 13. That objection was taken to such a method of representation is shown by the parallel passage Bṛih. 4. 5. 13, where the words quoted above from Bṛih. 2. 4. 12 are altered as follows:—“It is with him as with a lump of salt, which has no (distinguishable) inner or outer, but throughout consists entirely of taste,” etc. In a similar way efforts are made in other passages to show that Brahman by his transformation into the universe has forfeited nothing of the perfection of his own nature. As early as Ṛigveda X. 90. 3 it is said that all beings are only a fourth of the purusha, while the three other fourths remain immortal in heaven. The same teaching is found in Chând. 3. 12. 6, the verse from the Ṛigveda being repeated, and similarly in the concluding verse Maitr. 7. 11; while according to Bṛih. 5. 14, one foot of Brahman (under the figure of the Gâyatrî) consists of the three worlds, the second of the triple knowledge of the Veda, the third of the three vital breaths, while the fourth exalted above the dust of earth shines as the sun. Still more clearly is it taught already in S'atap. Br. 11. 2. 3 that Brahman, after having created the three worlds with that which lies above and beyond them, himself entered "into that half beyond." The infinite nature of Brahman is also taught in harmony with Atharvav. X. 8. 29 by the verse Bṛih. 5. 1 :—

c9.s5.t2.24

Though a man journey from the perfect to the perfect.
Yet that which is perfect yet remains over and above all.

c9.s5.t2.25

The same theme is elaborated in greater detail in the beautiful verses of Kâṭh. 5. 9-11 :—

c9.s5.t2.26

The light, as one, penetrates into space,
And yet adapts itself to every form;
So the inmost self of all beings dwells
Enwrapped in every form, and yet remains outside.

c9.s5.t2.27

The air, as one, penetrates into space,
And yet adapts itself to every form;
So the inmost self of all beings dwells
Enwrapped in every form, and yet remains outside.

c9.s5.t2.28

The sun, the eye of the whole universe,
Remains pure from the defects of eyes external to it;
So the inmost self of all beings remains
Pure from the sufferings of the external worlds.

3. Brahman as the Psychical Principle

c9.s5.t3.1

Brahman is the âtman. The first principle of all things is not, as might be imagined, in part only, but undivided, completely and as a whole present in that which I with true insight find within me as my own self, my ego, my soul. Of the value of this thought which governs all the speculations of the Upanishads we have formed an estimate in the Introduction.¹ Here we propose to select from the large number of passages which give expression to it only so many as are necessary in order to show that this thought also, precisely as that of Brahman as first principle of the universe, is in its original purpose idealistic, that is, denies the multiplicity of the universe around us; but that it receives a gradually increasing realistic colouring in proportion as we endeavour to conceive it under the forms of our knowledge, adapted as these are to realism.

c9.s5.t3.2

¹ *Sup.* p. 39 f.

c9.s5.t3.3

Yâjñavalkhya begins his instruction of Maitreyî in Bṛih. 2. 4 with the words:—“In truth, not for the husband’s sake is the husband dear, but for the sake of the self (the soul, *âtman*) is the husband dear.” Similarly all the objects of the world,—wife, sons and possessions, the estate of a Brâhman or a warrior, worlds, gods, living beings and the entire universe are dear to us not in themselves or for their own sake, but only for the sake of our own self. How this is to be understood is shown by the conclusion which immediately follows, and which is inferred from it:—“The self, in truth, should be seen, heard, comprehended and reflected on, O Maitreyî; in truth, he who has seen, heard, comprehended and known the self, by him this entire universe is known.” This implies that all reality is and remains limited to our own self, and that we know love and possess all things in the universe only so far as they subsist in our consciousness, as they are grasped and entertained by our knowing self; there is no universe outside of the *âtman*, our self, our soul. This is the standpoint of complete idealism, which denies the reality of the manifold universe, as it is further expounded by passages like Bṛih. 2. 1. 16 and 20, where it is taught that all worlds, gods and living creatures spring from the spirit consisting of knowledge (*vijñânamaya purusha*) like sparks from the fire; or, as in Bṛih. 3. 4 and 3. 5, where inquiry is made for the “ Brahman that is within all as soul,” and the answer is given :—“ It is thy soul, that is within all,” which as the knowing subject remains unknowable¹ and with the consciousness of which the whole universe, all children, possessions and wisdom vanish into the nothingness which they really are.² In the latter passage an inclination is already revealed towards the realism which is natural to us all, inasmuch as the existence of the external world is not denied; the objects are there, but as far as their essential nature is concerned they are nothing but the âtman alone. Similarly in the important and well-known passage Chând. 6. 8–16, where a series of mysterious phenomena and relations of nature and life are traced back to their unknowable original source, and of this it is then said in a nine-times repreated refrain :— “ What that subtle being (that unknowable, aṇiman) is, of which this whole universe is composed, that is the real, that is the soul, that art thou, O S’vetaketu!”

c9.s5.t3.4

¹ Bṛih. 3. 4.

c9.s5.t3.5

² Bṛih. 3. 5.

c9.s5.t3.6

This doctrine of the sole reality of the âtman, the soul in us, is in opposition to our innate and invincible conviction of the reality of the external world that surrounds us, and this opposition is intentionally brought into relief in a large number of passages, which with great boldness of metaphysical insight identify the soul in us as the inconceivably small with nature without us as the inconceivably great. “ He is all-effecting, all-wishing, all-smelling, all-tasting, embracing all, silent, untroubled;—this is my soul in my heart, smaller than a grain of rice or barley, or a mustard seed, than a grain or the kernel of a grain of millet; this is my soul in my heart, greater than the earth, greater than the atmosphere, greater than the heaven, greater than these worlds.”³ “ In truth, great as is this world-space, so great is this space within the heart; in it are contained both the heaven and the earth;

c9.s5.t3.7

³ Chând. 3. 14. 2.

c9.s5.t3.8

both fire and wind, both sun and moon, both lightning and stars, and whatever is possessed or not possessed in this life, all that is therein contained.”[¹] “Now however the light which shines there beyond the heaven behind all things, behind each, in the highest worlds, the highest of all, that is assuredly this light which is here within in men.”[²] The soul, as these passages teach, embraces the universe; it is moreover as it were all-pervading, the *antaryâmin*, the “inner guide” in everything:—“He who dwelling in 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.”[³] This speculation is then further extended to several cosmical and psychical relations, and it is said in conclusion:—“He sees but is not seen, hears but is not heard, comprehends but is not comprehended, knows but is not known. There is no seer beside him, no hearer beside him, no comprehender beside him, no knower beside him. He is thy soul, the inner guide, the immortal. All that is distinct from him is liable to suffering.” According to this, the *antaryâmin*, *i.e.* the power that dwells and rules in everything, is in its essence consciousness; for, as is stated in Ait. 3. 3, all gods, all substances and all organic beings, “all this is guided by consciousness, based upon consciousness; by consciousness the universe is guided, consciousness is its foundation, consciousness is Brahman.”

c9.s5.t3.9

¹ Chând. 8. 1. 3.

c9.s5.t3.10

² Chând. 3 13. 7.

c9.s5.t3.11

³ Bṛih. 3. 7. 3.

c9.s5.t3.12

Although according to this and many other passages the first principle of the universe dwells within us as consciousness or the knowing subject, yet its seat is not in the head but in the heart. “In truth, this great unborn self is that among the vital organs which consists of knowledge (*vijñânamaya*). Here within the heart is a cavity, therein he resides who is the lord of the universe, the governor of the universe, the chief of the universe; he is not exalted by good works, he is not degraded by evil works; he is the lord of the universe, he is the governor of living beings, he is the protector of living beings; he is the bridge which holds asunder these worlds, and prevents them from clashing together.”¹ Kaush. 3. 8 may perhaps be derived from this passage:—“He is the protector of the universe, he is the governor of the universe, he is the lord of the worlds; and this is my soul, that ought men to know.” Similarly numerous passages in the later Upanishads celebrate Brahman as “implanted in the cavity of the heart.”² The identity of the âtman in us with the âtman of the universe is expressed by the *tat tvam asi* of Chând. 6. 8–16, and also by the *etad vai tad*, “in truth this is that,” of Bṛih. 5. 4, which is probably an imitation of the other. The same formula is found twelve times in Kâṭh. 4. 3–6. 1 in a prose passage appended to the verses. The highest bliss, according to Kâṭh. 5. 14, consists in the consciousness of this thought. We quote in this connection only Kâṭh. 4. 12–13:—

c9.s5.t3.13

¹ Bṛih. 4. 4. 22; an indirect reference to Bṛih. 3. 8. 9.

c9.s5.t3.14

² *nihito guhâyâm*, first in Taitt. 2. 1; then Kâṭh. 1. 14, 2. 20, 3. 1, 4. 6–7; Muṇḍ. 2. 1. 10, 3. 1. 7, etc.

c9.s5.t3.15

An inch in height, here in the body
The purusha dwells,
Lord of the past and the future;
He who knows him frets no more,—
In truth, this is that.

Like flame without smoke, an inch in height
The purusha is in size,
Lord of the past and the future;
It is he to-day and also to-morrow,—
In truth, this is that.

c9.s5.t3.16

As here the purusha is compared to a smokeless flame, so in imitation of this passage, in S’vet. 6. 19, it is likened to a fire whose fuel is consumed;¹ while in S'vet. 5. 9 the contrast between the âtman within us and the âtman in the universe is pushed to an extreme :—²

c9.s5.t3.17

¹ Similarly Maitr. 6. 34, Brahmavidyâ 9, Nṛisiṃhott. 2.

c9.s5.t3.18

² Surpassed however in Dhyânab. 6.

c9.s5.t3.19

Split a hundred times the tip of a hair,
And take a hundredth part thereof;
That I judge to be the size of the soul,
Yet it goes to immortality.

c9.s5.t3.20

The description of the âtman as a smokeless flame in the heart has been developed in the Yoga Upanishads into the picture of the tongue of flame in the heart, the earliest occurrence of which is perhaps Mahân. 11. 6–12.³

c9.s5.t3.21

³ cp. Brahmavidyâ 10, Yogas'ikhâ 6, Yogatattva 9–11, Maitr. 6. 30.

c9.s5.t3.22

We saw above how the doctrine of Brahman as the cosmical principle was represented in accommodation to the empirical mode of thought as a creation of the universe in time by Brahman as its first cause. The same spirit of accommodation lies at the basis of the form assumed by the doctrine of Brahman as the psychical principle, viz., that Brahman after having created the universe enters into it as the individual soul. "This universe was at that time not unfolded; but it unfolded itself in name and form. . . . into it that (âtman) entered up to the finger-tips. . . . this therefore which here (within us) is the âtman is the trace (to be pursued) of the universe; for in it the entire universe is known," etc.⁴ The last words prove that the entrance of the soul, as described, into the universe which it has created is merely a metaphor designed to render intelligible the assumed identity of the soul with the first principle of the universe. It then however more and more stiffens into an actual realism, as the following passages show. "Into citadels he entered as a bird, into citadels as a citizen."⁵ "So into these three divinities (the three elements) that divinity entered with this living self, and separated out from one another names and forms.”¹ “After he had practised self-mortification he created this entire universe, whatever exists; after he had created it, he entered into it.”² The same conception, even more realistically depicted, is found as early as Ait. 1. 11, 12:—“And he considered,—In what way shall I enter into it? . . . so he split the crown of the head, and entered through this gate.” The later the realism is, the more pronounced it becomes. Maitr. 2. 6 may serve as an example: Prajâpati created numerous creatures, “these he saw standing unconscious and lifeless like a stone, motionless like the trunk of a tree; therefore he had no joy; and he resolved,—I will enter into them, in order to awaken consciousness within them; accordingly he made himself a wind, and determined to enter into them,” etc.

c9.s5.t3.23

⁴ Brih. 1. 4. 7.

c9.s5.t3.24

⁵ Brih. 2. 5. 18.

c9.s5.t3.25

¹ Chând. 6. 3. 3

c9.s5.t3.26

² Taitt. 2. 6.

c9.s5.t3.27

We see therefore the original idealism by reason of a progressive accommodation to the demands of our intellectual capacity harden into a realism, which in no respects falls behind the Semitic.³

c9.s5.t3.28

³ Gen. 27.

4. Brahman as a personal God (îśvara)

c9.s5.t4.1

The attempt to clothe the fundamental idealistic conception which refuses to recognise a universe independent of the âtman, and which lies at the foundation of the thought of the Upanishads, in intelligible, *i.e.* realistic forms, led at first, as we saw, to a pantheism which concedes to the empirical consciousness the reality of the universe, and at the same time asserts the sole existence of the âtman by declaring that this entire universe is nothing else than the âtman. This assertion was essentially dogmatic, and amounted to this, that the universe as a phenomenal form of the âtman took up a position over-against the âtman itself as a second; although the endeavour was strenuously made to reconcile this contradiction by the reiterated assurance that the universe is identical with the âtman, the infinitely great without us with the infinitely great within. A further step in the same direction that tended towards realism is implied when the âtman as first principle is contrasted not only with the universe, whose outward form it has put on, but also with the âtman within us with which it is originally identical. Thus is brought into existence the theism which is found in some of the later Upanishads. It has not arisen from the ancient Vedic polytheism, but first makes its appearance long after this has been superseded by the âtman doctrine; the âtman is not a “god,” deva, in the ancient Vedic sense, but he is the “lord,” îśvara. The difference of the two modes of representation will become clear if we first gather together the most important data with regard to the position of the ancient Vedic gods in the Upanishads.

c9.s5.t4.2

The existence of the ancient Vedic gods Indra, Agni, Varuṇa, etc. is as little denied by the Upanishads as that of the Greek by Xenophanes. But as by the latter all the other gods equally with men are subordinated to the one god (εἷς θεὸς ἔν τε θεοῖσι καὶ ἀνθρώποισι μέγιστος), so in the Upanishads all the ancient Vedic gods are created by the âtman and dependent on him. From the âtman proceed, like the sparks from the fire, all worlds, all living beings, and no less all gods;¹ on him all the gods depend;² by him they were created as the guardians of the universe;³ “therefore when the people say of each separate god, ‘Sacrifice to this, sacrifice to that,’ (it should be known that) this created universe proceeds from him alone; he therefore is all the gods. This (creation) here is an overplus of creation of Brahman. Because he created the gods higher (than he himself is), and because he as mortal created the immortals, therefore is it called the overplus of creation" (*atisrishti*).¹ It is further related² how the âtman created the divine Kshatriyas (Indra, Varuṇa, Soma, etc.), Vais'yas (the Vasus, Rudras, Âdityas, etc.), and S'ûdras (Pûshan). According to Bṛih. 1. 3. 12-16, it is the organs of the prâṇa, viz. speech, smell, eye, ear, manas, which are by him led beyond the reach of death, and now continue to exist as the gods Agni, Vâyu, Âditya, the heavenly regions and the moon. The number of the gods was in Vedic times usually given as thirty-three. The vague and arbitrary character of this reckoning Yajñavalkhya, in Bṛih. 3. 9. 1, brings home in the following way:—Why thirty-three? why not three hundred and three? or three thousand and three? or both together (3306)? and if we say thirty-three, it might just as well be reduced to six, or three, or two, or one and a half, or one, which is the prâṇa. All these numbers, 3306, 33, 6, 3, 2, 1½, as the manifold forces, parts and organs of nature, come back finally to a unity,—"the prâṇa, thus he said, this men call Brahman, the yonder (*tyad*)." The dependence of all these nature-gods on Brahman is described in the myth of Kena 14-28:—Agni is unable to burn a blade of grass, Vâyu is unable to blow away a wisp of straw, apart from the will of Brahman, which is effective in all the gods. Brahman dwells, according to Bṛih. 3. 7, as the inner guide (*antaryâmin*) in all parts of the universe, and no less in all the corresponding gods. All the gods pursue their tasks, according to a verse preserved in Taitt. 2. 8 and Kâṭh. 6. 3, "from fear" of Brahman; and according to Kaush. 1. 5, even Indra and Prajâpati, the doorkeepers of the heavenly world, are not able to prevent the entrance of the soul of him who knows Brahman, or to turn it back. And just as the power of the gods is dependent on Brahman, so their knowledge also is imperfect; they are not in possession from the very beginning of the knowledge of Brahman.¹ Accordingly in Chând. 8. 7 f. they depute Indra to obtain from Prajâpati the knowledge of the âtman, and for the first time, after they have obtained it, they worship him in the world of Brahman as the self; thereupon they possess all worlds and all desires.² In this respect the gods have no advantage over men:—"Whoever of the gods perceived this ('I am Brahman') he became Brahman; and similarly of the rishis, and similarly of men. . . . And to-day also, he who knows this 'I am Brahman' becomes this universe; and even the gods have no power to prevent his so becoming; for he is the soul (âtman) of it."³

c9.s5.t4.3

¹ Bṛih. 2. 1. 20.

c9.s5.t4.4

² Kâṭh. 4. 9.

c9.s5.t4.5

³ Ait. 1. 1. 3.

c9.s5.t4.6

¹ Bṛih. 1. 4. 6.

c9.s5.t4.7

² Bṛih. 1. 4. 11-13.

c9.s5.t4.8

¹ cp. Bṛih. 1. 4. 10, 4. 3. 33, 5. 2. 1, Taitt. 2. 8, Kaush. 4. 20, Kâṭh. 1. 21.

c9.s5.t4.9

² Chând. 8. 12. 6.

c9.s5.t4.10

³ Bṛih. 1. 4. 10.

c9.s5.t4.11

These passages make clear the part which the gods play in the texts of the oldest Upanishads. It is quite a different matter however, not to be confused with the other, when individual gods appear occasionally as symbolical representatives of the âtman, as for example Indra in Bṛih. 1. 5. 12, Ait. 1. 3. 14, Kaush. 2. 6, 3. 1, Varuṇa in Taitt. 3. 1, or Prajâpati in Chând. 8. 7 f.

c9.s5.t4.12

The monotheism which meets us in some later Upanishads has not been developed from this ancient Vedic polytheism, which still has its echoes in the Upanishads, but from entirely different premisses. The proof of this is furnished already by the external fact that the personal god of the Upanishads, usually and apart from exceptions,⁴ is called not deva (god), but îs', îs'a, îs'âna, îs'vara (the lord), and in later times commonly parames'vara (the supreme lord). As these names already show, we must look for the origin of the theism of the Upanishads in such texts as celebrate the âtman as the "inner guide" (antaryâmin) in all the parts and forces of nature and of mankind,¹ and which represent all effects in the universe as the result of his command (pras'âsanam), as in Bṛih. 3. 8. 9:—"At the bidding of this imperishable one, O Gârgî, sun and moon are held asunder," etc. Here it is the "imperishable" (aksharam, neuter) that is spoken of, which for the moment is poetically personified. This is not yet theism, but only the first step towards it. Similarly in Bṛih. 4. 4. 22:—"Here within the heart is a cavity, therein he dwells, the lord of the universe, the governor of the universe, the chief of the universe; he is not exalted by good works, he is not degraded by evil works; he is the lord of the universe, he is the governor of living beings, he is the protector of living beings; he is the bridge that holds asunder these worlds, and prevents them from clashing together." The same is the case with the temporary personification of Brahman as the refuge of love, the lord of love, the lord of brightness;² and in the injunction of Îs'â. 1 also, "to sink in god" the universe (îs'â vâsyam idam sarvam) there is still no theism, for the god who is here referred to is, as the following verses show,³ the âtman within us. The doctrine of a personal god, and with it predestination, appears to be taught also in Kaush. 3. 8:—"He is not exalted by good works nor degraded by evil works, but it is he who inspires to do good works the man whom he will lead on high out of these worlds, and it is he who inspires to do evil works the man whom he will lead downwards. He is the guardian of the universe, he is the ruler of the universe, he is the lord of the worlds,—and he is my soul (âtman), that ought man to know." As the last sentence shows, it is still man's own self again that determines him to good or evil, and accordingly there is still no theism. The latter first certainly appears, where the âtman is contrasted not only with the universe, but also with the self within us. This seems evidently to be the case first in the Kaṭhaka Upanishad, where in 3. 1 the supreme and the individual self are distinguished as light and shadow; and according to 2. 23 the knowledge of the âtman depends upon a kind of free grace:—

c9.s5.t4.13

⁴ Such as Kâṭh. 2. 12. 21, S'vet. 1. 8, and frequently.

c9.s5.t4.14

¹ Bṛih. 3. 7. 3–23.

c9.s5.t4.15

² Chând. 4. 15. 2–4.

c9.s5.t4.16

³ vv. 6, 7.

c9.s5.t4.17

Only by the man whom he chooses is he comprehended,
To him the âtman reveals his essence.

c9.s5.t4.18

Whether Kaṭh. 2. 20 also is to be understood in a theistic sense depends upon whether we read *dhātu-prasādād* “by the repose of the elements,” or *dhātuḥ prasādād* “by the grace of the creator” (having regard to the majesty of the âtman). On the recurrence of the verse in S'vet. 3. 20 and Mahân. 1.10 it is in any case to be interpreted in a theistic sense.¹

c9.s5.t4.19

¹ cp. also S'vet. 6. 18, *âtma-buddhi-prasâdam*.

c9.s5.t4.20

We come next to the S'vetâs'vatara Upanishad, the leading example of the theistic teaching of the Upanishads, in which God and the soul, though their original identity is not denied, are yet clearly distinguished from one another. Thus in S'vet. 4. 6, 7 it is said:—²

c9.s5.t4.21

² Interpreting the verse Rigv. I. 164. 20.

c9.s5.t4.22

Two bright-feathered bosom friends
Flit around one and the same tree;
One of them tastes the sweet berries
The other, without eating, merely gazes down.

On such a tree the spirit, depressed,
In its weakness mourns, a prey to illusion,
Yet when it gazes worshipping on the might
And majesty of the other, then its grief departs.

c9.s5.t4.23

These verses are repeated in the Muṇḍ Up. 3. 1. 1, 2, but since elsewhere this Upanishad breathes a pantheistic spirit, they are probably borrowed here from the theistic S'vetâs'vatara. But in the latter also traces of the idealism that regards everything besides the âtman as unreal, and of the pantheism that identifies the universe with the âtman, both of which were taken over from the earlier Upanishads, continue to exist side by side with the theism; thereby making its representations often contradictory and philosophically unintelligible. This is the case when in 4. 10 the universe is declared to be mâyâ (illusion) caused by the supreme god; although with the reality of the universe the reality of god also in lost, and only the âtman within us survives as real. Or when in S'vet. 1. 6 the distinction of soul and god (the swan and the drover) is explained to be illusory, and at the same time the removal of this illusion appears as a grace of the supreme god, who is thereby first contrasted with the soul as another. Hence it follows that the S'vetâs'vatara is a work brimful of contradictions. It is like a codex bis palimpsestus. Beneath the characters of theism are discerned, half obliterated, those of pantheism, and under the latter again those of idealism. Just as in the later Vedânta, so already in S'vet. 5. 5, 6. 4, 6. 11, 6, 12 the task of bringing works to maturity and apportioning their fruit to the souls is indicated as the chief function of îs'vara; although to the Upanishad also this entire conception of the îs'vara, as later in the Vedânta, proves to be merely exoteric, and is not to be derived with certainty from 3. 7.

c9.s5.t4.24

The theism of the S'vetâs'vatara is adopted and further developed by the later Upanishads, which endeavour to establish a connection with the popular religions by attaching the âtman of the Upanishad doctrine to the cult of S'iva (the beginning of which we may observe in the S'vet. Up.) or of Vishnu. But even in them the original idealism, which dissolves universe and god in the âtman, reveals itself. This is the case in Nrisimhottara-tâpanîya Up. 1, where the "fourth" and highest state of the soul, the turîya, is distinguished from its three states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep, and is represented as the abyss of the eternal unity, in which all distinctions of being and knowing vanish, the entire expanse of the universe is obliterated, “and even îs'vara (the personal god) is swallowed up by the turîya (the fourth), by the turîya.”

Linked texts (21)