Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The System of the Vedanta according to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Cankara's Commentary c6.s6: XII. The Brahman as Soul

The System of the Vedânta according to Bâdarâyana's Brahma-Sûtras and Çankara's Commentary c6.s6

Language
English

Contents

XII. The Brahman as Soul

1. Brahman as the Self (âtman)

c6.s6.t1.1

Sûtras 1, 4, 19—22.

c6.s6.t1.2

No man, whatever he may do, can get out of his own Self; everything in the world can only arouse our interest, nay, only exists for us, in so far as, affecting us, it enters the sphere of our "I," and so, as it were, becomes a part of us. Therefore our own Self with its content is the first, and in a certain sense the only object of philosophical investigation.

c6.s6.t1.3

This thought may prepare us for the consideration of one of the most remarkable passages in the Upanishads, the conversation between *Yâjñavalkya* and his spouse *Maitreyî*, which exists in two recensions, Bṛih. 2, 4 and Bṛih. 4, 5, and in both according to the reading of the *Kânvas*, as well as (in *Çatap*. Br.) according to that of the *Mâdhyandinas*; in all, therefore, in four forms. *Çaṅkara* quotes, if we leave out of the question passages which are identical, sometimes the recension in Bṛih. 2, 4 (for example p. 385, 10. 392, 8), sometimes that in Bṛih. 4, 5; and the latter as well in the *Kânva* form (p. 199, l. 11. 399, 4. 613, 2. 648, 6. 674, 9. 930, 5. 974, 7. 1142, 6) as in the *Mâdhyandina* form (p. 185, 15. 386, 7. 387, 3. 392, 10. 794, 14. 983, 4). Also the quotation 646, 9—647, 1 is according to the *Mâdhyandinas*, borrowing *imam*, however, instead of *idam* from the *Kânvas*; the quotation p. 388, 9 is divergent from both, and the same again in another form p. 391, 8;—this seems to shew, that *Çaṅkara* is wont to quote the Upanishads chiefly from memory, which might serve him here, where four recensions interfere with one another, less faithfully than usual. In what follows, we analyse the passage according to Bṛih. 2, 4 and introduce the divergencies in Bṛh. 4, 5 only so far as seems interesting.

c6.s6.t1.4

(Addition in Bṛh. 4, 5: “Yājñavalkya had two wives, Maitreyī and Kātyāyanī; of these Maitreyī was conversant with Brahman, Kātyāyanī on the contrary knew only what women know [cf. St. Luke X, 38—42]. Now Yājñavalkya wished to pass to the other condition of life [from the condition of householder to that of hermit]). Then said Yājñavalkya: “Maitreyī! I will now give up this condition [of householder]. Therefore will I make partition between thee and Kātyāyanī.”—Then spoke Maitreyī: ‘If indeed to me, Master, this whole earth with all its riches belonged, should I thereby be immortal?’—‘By no means!’ said Yājñavalkya, ‘but as the life of those who prosper, so would thy life be; but there is no hope of immortality through riches.’—Maitreyī spoke: ‘What shall I do with that, whereby I become not immortal? Share with me rather, Master, the knowledge which thou possessest.’—Yājñavalkya spoke: ‘Dear to us, verily, art thou, and dear is what thou sayest. Come, seat thyself, I will explain it to thee, but do thou mark well what I tell thee.’”—

c6.s6.t1.5

The teaching which now follows begins with the sentence: “Verily, not for the sake of the husband is the husband dear, but for the sake of the Self is the husband dear.” What is here said of the husband, is further, with continual repetition of the same formula, declared of the wife, children, power, Brahmanhood, warriorship, worlds, gods, beings, and finally of all that exists;—all this is not dear for its own sake, but for the sake of the Self.—Apparently nothing more can be found than the thought expressed by us in introducing this chapter; Śaṅkara, on the other hand, on Bṛh. p. 448, 7 explains that here renunciation (vairāgyam) is taught as the means to immortality. And indeed, when everything only serves the purpose of gratifying the Self, it is further the question, what then is our true and real Self? And here the Indian consciousness is led quite of itself by the word Ātman (Self, Soul, God) to find in God our own real “I,” and in a withdrawal to him the satisfaction which we seek in all relations of life.

c6.s6.t1.6

Therefore the real *nervus probandi* lies here in the use of the word *Âtman* which arises from deeper philosophical insight:—what we long for, is everywhere and always only the satisfaction of our own Self; but our Self is identical with the highest Godhead and only apparently different from Him; he who sees the illusory nature of this appearance, who has become conscious of God as his own Self, has and possesses the perfect satisfaction, which he has sought in vain in striving after the outward. In this sense it is further said: "The Self, verily, o Maitreyî, is to be seen, heard, meditated on and investigated; he who sees, hears, meditates on and investigates the Self, has understood this whole world."—He who has understood this, knows himself as one with all Being; he who has not understood it, for him all beings are foreign and hostile; this is expressed by the sequel, in which it is explained that Brahmans and warriors, worlds, gods, and beings, all abandon or exclude (*parâdât*) him who regards all these things as different from himself.—Not in its void appearances can the Self be grasped, but in that which produces these appearances; he who has understood this, has understood appearances along with it; this thought is contained in the following images: when a drum is beaten, a shell blown, a lute played, the tones going out from them cannot be grasped; but if the instrument or the player are grasped, then the tones are grasped at the same time.—As from damp wood, when it burns, clouds of smoke go forth, so from this great Being all Vedas and (as Brih. 4, 5 adds) all worlds and creatures are breathed forth.—The *Âtman* is the point of union (*ekâyanam*) for all beings, as the ocean for all waters, the skin for all sensations of touch, the tongue for all tastes, the nose for all smells, the eye for all forms, the ear for all tones, etc.—But why do we not see the *Âtman*, who alone really is, but only its void appearances? To this replies the following image guaranteed as genuine by Chând. 6, 13, but on account of its being dogmatically exceptionable, already quite altered in the late recension Brih. 4, 5: "‘As a lump of salt, thrown into water, dissolves in the water, so that it cannot be taken out, but wherever it is tasted, it is everywhere salt,—thus,

c6.s6.t1.7

“ ‘verily, also this great, endless, shoreless Being which is
“ ‘knowledge through and through: from these creatures it
“ ‘rises [as knowing spirit] and with them it perishes again;
“ ‘after death there is no consciousness! thus verily I tell thee!’
“ ‘Thus spoke Yājñavalkya. Then Maitreyī spoke: ‘By this, O
“ ‘Master, hast thou perplexed me, that thou sayest, there is
“ ‘no consciousness after death.’ But Yājñavalkya spoke:
“ ‘Nothing bewildering truly speak I; what I said, suffices for
“ ‘the understanding, for where there is a duality, as it were,
“ ‘there the one sees the other, there the one smells, hears,
“ ‘speaks to, thinks of, knows the other; but where, for a man,
“ ‘all has become his own Self, how should he there see any-
“ ‘one, how should he there smell, hear, speak to, think of,
“ ‘know anyone? That through which he knows all this, how
“ ‘should he know that, how should he know the Knower?’”—
(Addition in Bṛh. 4, 5: ‘Now knowest thou the doctrine, O
“ ‘Maitreyī; this truly suffices for immortality.’ Thus spoke
“ ‘Yājñavalkya and departed.”)

c6.s6.t1.8

The remarks of Bādarāyaṇa and Śaṅkara on this passage are of special interest, in that they allow us to penetrate into certain differences of principle within the Vedānta school, in which Āśmarathya and Auḍulomi, each in his own way, represent the rationalistic, exoteric understanding, while Kāśakṛtsna represents the mystical and esoteric.—As is usual, the question is raised, whether in the passage the individual or the highest soul is to be understood by the “Self” (p. 385, 13); what distinguishes the two, is only the limitations (*upādhi*), that is, the, body, organs of sense and action, Manas and Buddhi, clothed in which the highest soul appears as the individual soul; on them it depends, that it is enjoyer (or sufferer, *bhoktar*) and actor (*kartar*), from both of which conditions the highest soul, that is, Brahman, is free. Now in our passage there are certain unmistakable features, which only suit the individual soul; thus the introduction, in which, the soul’s love of things is spoken of, which can only be understood of the enjoyer (p. 386, 5); thus too the doctrine that the soul rises out of these creatures and again perishes with them (p. 386, 9); thus finally, the expression “Knower,” which indicates an actor (p. 386, 11). On the other hand, the whole context (p. 386, 15), compels us to think of the highest soul: a knowledge of it only, secures the immortality which Maitreyî strove after (p. 387, 4); only of it is it true, that, when it is known, all is known (p. 387, 6); so also the proposition, that all things exclude him, who believes them to be outside the soul, can only be understood of the highest soul which includes all (p. 387, 13); this is especially true of the similes of the drum and the rest (p. 387, 14) and of the passage, where the soul is indicated as the cause of the Veda etc. (p. 388, 1) and as the point of union of all that is (p. 388, 4). If consequently only the highest soul is to be understood, then we must ask, how are we to deal with the above mentioned features which only suit the individual soul? Açmarathya sees in them a guarantee of the promise, that with the Âtman all is known; if he grasp all, he grasps the individual soul also (p. 388, 8 ff. 390, 10. 391, 12). As this view, not quite clear in spite of repetitions, amounts to understanding the soul as a part of Brahman, and therefore the relation between them as spatial, so Auḍulomi sets up a temporal relation: because the soul is temporarily (in deep sleep) one with Brahman, therefore in the passage in question it appears as found in unity with Brahman (p. 389. 390, 12. 392, 1). In opposition to both, Kâçakṛitsna, whose view Çankara adheres to, as being in conformity with scripture (p. 390, 14. 393, 11), establishes the doctrine of Identity, in virtue of which the highest soul exists whole and undivided in the form of the individual soul (p. 390, 2. 392, 3); the annihilation of knowledge after death means only that of individual knowledge (viçeṣa-vijñânam), (p. 392, 7) and the description of God as the "Knower" indicates no actorship, but only a consisting of the pure substance of consciousness (p. 393, 9), as also the reality of liberation consists in the irrefragable certainty of the knowledge that God and the soul are one, and the absolute satisfaction therefrom resulting (p. 395, 3).—

c6.s6.t1.9

Similar considerations of the fact that the difference between God and the soul is a mere appearance, while liberation is a seeing through this appearance, will be met with many times in the sequel; but all attempts of this kind to grasp liberation as a new form of knowledge, do not give, and cannot give, any satisfactory conclusion as to its nature (as it appeared to the Indian in examples and appears to us), so long as it is not supplemented by the idea of the moral transformation, which is so strongly accentuated by Christianity, but remained foreign to Indian thought. This seems to have been felt in the Vedânta schools also;—against those who could acquiesce in the solution of the question sought in the region of intellect only, the words of Çañkara at the end of our extract seem to be directed: "But those who are stubborn, and force the "sense of the scripture, therewith force also the perfect know"ledge which leads to salvation, hold liberation to be some"thing made and [therefore] transitory, and do not follow "after what is lawful" (p. 396, 3).

2. Brahman as Prâna (Breath, Life)

c6.s6.t2.1

(a) Sûtras 1, 1, 28—31.

c6.s6.t2.2

Brahman as the principle of life is the subject of the third Adhyâya of the Kaushîtaki-Upanishad, which in Cowell's edition exists in two recensions p. 73—102 and p. 129—134,⁸¹ and the actual contents of which are as follows:

c6.s6.t2.3

⁸¹ Çañkara appears, as we found above (p. 31) to follow a third recension whose readings in general agree with those of Cowell's first; yet he reads 3, 2 p. 78, 4 with the second prajñâtmâ tam (p. 154, 8); 3, 5 p. 89, 3 he has contrary both recensions, adûduhat (p. 164, 2); at 3, 3 p. 83, 1 he remarks that some read imam çarîram (p. 161, 6), which would be an instance of çarîra as masculine, as Çañkara's construction imam (jîvam), parigrihya çarîram, utthâpayati is hardly possible. Çañkara has a very noteworthy reading 3, 2 p. 82, 2, where he reads astitve ca instead of asti tv eva (p. 158, 7).

c6.s6.t2.4

1. Pratardana comes to the abode of Indra, who allows him to choose a boon. Pratardana begs the god to choose for him what he deems to be the best thing for mankind. After some hesitation Indra speaks: "Then know me; for this "I deem to be the best thing for a man, that he should "know me.... Who knows me, his place [in heaven] is not "diminished by any deed, neither by theft nor by slaying the “fruit of the body, nor by matricide nor by parricide; and “even if he has committed (cakrusho) evil [previously, before “the knowledge of Brahman], yet the colour fades not from “his face [no fear makes him pale].”

c6.s6.t2.5

2. “I am the breath (prâna), I am the Self of knowledge “(prajñâtman); as this, as immortal life worship me. Life is “breath and breath is life; for as long as the breath remains “in this body, so long remains the life; only through breath “is immortality [continuance of life] gained in this world, and “through knowledge, true wishes [wishes that are directed to “the Eternal, cf. above p. 161]. He who worships me as im“mortal life, comes to full life in this world, he gains im“mortality, imperishability in the heavenly world.”—Further it is developed that all the life-organs (speech, ear, eye, etc.) go back to a unity (ekabhûyam gacchanti), through the power of which each organ performs its function, so that, in each special manifestation of life, all organs [in virtue of their centralisation in life] work together. “Thus it is,” adds Indra, confirming the theory quoted, “and the well-being of the life“organs lies in what they are [astitve, that is, in Brahman, “not in what they do].”

c6.s6.t2.6

3. “The organs are not essential to life; for the dumb, “blind, deaf, imbecile (bâla) and crippled live; but verily the “life only, the Self of knowledge, surrounds the body and “supports it (utthâpayati, literally: raises it up), therefore it “is to be worshipped as the support (uktham, literally: hymn). “This is the penetration of all [organs] in the life. Verily, “life is knowledge, and knowledge is life.”—According to this identification, carried out all through, of life (prâna) and knowledge (prajñâ), which is based on the fact that Brahman, as the principle of life, as shewn above (p. 134 ff.), must also be pure intelligence, are depicted the nature of deep sleep and death. In both, the life-organs (speech, eye, ear, etc.), along with the things and relations of the outer world dependent on them (name, form, tone, etc.), enter into the life; on awaking, as sparks arise from the fire, so the organs arise from the life, from them the gods (that is, the powers of nature), and from the gods the worlds, go forth again; in death, on the contrary, life, with the organs merged in it, wanders forth from the body.

c6.s6.t2.7

4. It is further shewn how all external relations are poured (*abhivisrijyante*) into the life, by means of the life-organs (as speech, eye, ear, etc.).

c6.s6.t2.8

5. The life-organs, as separate members or parts, are drawn out of the life [*udûlham*; or with Çañkara *adûduhat*, the organs each milk a part out of the life]; but the things of the outer world are only the element of being of the organs projected outwards (*parastât prativihitâ bhûtamâtrâ*).

c6.s6.t2.9

6. By means of intellect [*prajñâ*, which was identified above with life] the man mounts the organs [like a car] and so reaches outer things.

c6.s6.t2.10

7. For in themselves and without intellect (*prajñâ*) the organs cannot know and notify outer things. (In this passage *prajñâ* takes the place of *manas*, which elsewhere appears as the central organ of the life-organs, but is here ranged along with them.)

c6.s6.t2.11

8. Not objects, but the subject, should be investigated, not speech, smell, form, tone, etc., but that which speaks, smells, sees, hears, etc.—"The ten elements of being are related to Cognition, and the ten elements of Cognition to being; for if the elements of being were not, then the elements of Cognition also would not be, and if the elements of Cognition were not, then the elements of being would not be either. For through the one [without the other] no appearance (*rûpam*) comes into existence; yet this is not a plurality [of outer things and organs], but as, in the case of a car, the felloes are fastened to the spokes, and the spokes to the nave, so these elements of being are fastened to the elements of Cognition, and the elements of Cognition to the *Prâna* (Life). This *Prâna* alone is the self of Cognition (*prajñâ-tman*), and bliss, it does not grow old and dies not. He becomes not higher through good works, or lower through evil [abstains from all works], for He alone causes him to do good works, whom He will raise above these worlds, and He alone causes him to do evil works, whom He will lead downwards; He is the guardian of the worlds, the ruler of “the worlds,—He is my soul, this is to be known, He is my “soul, this is to be known!”

c6.s6.t2.12

In this section of the Kaushîtaki-Upanishad, as Çañkara develops it, by Prâna neither breath, nor the god Indra, nor the individual soul are to be understood, although there are characteristics which point to all three of them, but on the contrary the highest Brahman (p. 155, 2 read: *param brahma*), for of it only can it be said, that a knowledge of it is the highest good for man (p. 156, 2), and that he who has known it is stained by no sins, in that, after knowledge of Brahman, all works vanish away (p. 156, 7); only to Brahman applies the description as Self of Cognition,⁸² as bliss, as also that it does not grow old and dies not, performs no works and predestines the deeds of beings (p. 156, 8—17).—The god Indra, in whose mouth the whole dissertation is placed, is not to be thought of, because in this passage occur a mass of relations, those mentioned and many others, which compel us to understand the highest soul (p. 158, 2), with which Indra is here identified, just as Vâmadeva is with Manu and Sûrya (Rigv. 4, 26, 1; cf. Brih. 1, 4, 10), in virtue of a gift of seership extending to the life before birth, occurring in the canon of scripture;⁸³ therefore also the heroic deeds of Indra are only mentioned to the end of glorifying the knowledge of Brahman, connected with them, because he who possesses this knowledge, remains unscathed like Indra in all his battles (p. 160, 5).—No more than Indra can the individual soul or the *Mukhya prâna* (the central organ of unconscious life) be understood, although to the former would apply the distinction between subject and object (p. 160, 13), to the latter, the support of the body (p. 161, 3), while the indication as Self of knowledge and the separation between *prâṇa* and *prajñâ* would lend itself to this interpretation (p. 161, 8. 11). The most essential reason why not these but Brahman are to be understood, lies in the words of the Sûtram 1, 1, 31: *upâsâtraividhyâd, âçritatvâd, iha tad-yogât*, which either mean: "because, if *Jîva* and *Mukhya* *prâṇa* as well as Brahman were to be understood, a triplicity of worship would of necessity arise (p. 161, 15); because elsewhere also the word *Prâṇa* refers to Brahman (p. 162, 7); and because here it is connected with marks of Brahman (p. 162, 8),"—or, according to another explanation of the Sûtram: "Brahman is to be understood, because a triplicity of worship of Brahman, namely as *prâṇa*, as *prajñâ*, and as *brahman* is taught here (p. 164), because elsewhere also worship of Brahman is taught by means of limiting qualities (*upâdhi-dharma*) (p. 165, 5), and this is taking place here also (p. 165, 6)."

c6.s6.t2.13

⁸² As Kaush. 3, 2 so in Çañkara's work also *prajñâtman* means only the highest (p. 156, 8. 157, 12. 158, 5; on the other hand = *jîva* p. 161, 8 in the Pûrvapaksha), and *vijñânâtman* means only the individual soul (p. 134, 7. 181, 12. 183, 2. 12; 120, 15. 388, 14. 393, 11). In the same way, *prâjna*, for Bâdarâyana (1, 4, 5. 2, 3, 29) and Çañkara (p. 273, 7. 8. 275, 4. 331, 5. 9. 347, 4. 5. 14. 350, 10. 11. 351, 11. 12. 352, 1. 9. 353, 5. 13. 354, 2. 475, 1. 662, 12. 780, 5. 6. 10. 785, 1. 8. 793, 11. 828, 13. 829, 3. 8) and also *prâjna âtman* (p. 271, 12. 272, 7. 9) always means the highest soul.—This is the more to be accentuated, as in the Vedântasâra, § 53 ff., *prâjna* has become a term for the individual soul.

c6.s6.t2.14

⁸³ *ârshena darçanena yathâçâstram*, as Çañkara p. 159, 9 explains the *çâstradrishti* of the Sûtram; cf. however *drishti* in the Sûtram 1, 2, 26 with Çañkara's interpretation p. 215, 11.

c6.s6.t2.15

(b) Sûtras 1, 4, 16–18.

c6.s6.t2.16

As a variation of the theme just treated of, we may consider the conversation between *Gârgya*, the son of *Balâka*, and *Ajâtaçatru*, which forms the fourth Adhyâya of the Kaushitaki-Upanishad, and, with important divergencies in detail, recurs in *Bṛih*. 2, 1. *Çaṅkara* adheres to the Kaushitaki recension,⁸⁴ according to which the main contents are as follows.

c6.s6.t2.17

⁸⁴ Here also *Çaṅkara's* readings diverge in many ways from both forms in which the text is printed by Cowell; thus he reads (p. 380, 7) *saṃvadishṭhâḥ* instead of *saṃvâdayishṭhâḥ* and *samavâdayishṭhâḥ* Kaush. 4, 19, p. 117, 3 and 138, 20.

c6.s6.t2.18

*Gârgya*, a renowned authority on the Veda, comes to king *Ajâtaçatru* and offers to explain Brahman to him. After he has determined Brahman in a series of sixteen definitions, as the spirit (*purusha*) in the sun, in the moon, in lightning, etc., and these explanations have one after the other been rejected by Ajātaçatru as inadequate, Gârgya becomes silent, and the king speaks to him: "In vain therefore hast thou challenged "me to a disputation, in order to explain Brahman to me; "for, verily, he who has made those spirits [named by thee], "and whose work this [world] is, he, verily, is to be investigated." —Now Ajātaçatru undertakes to teach Gârgya. He leads him to one in deep sleep, who does not wake when they speak to him, but only after they have pushed him with a stick. Ajātaçatru asks Gârgya: "Where lay this spirit, where was "he, whence did he come?"—As Gârgya does not know it, the king explains to him how, in deep sleep, all organs, together with the corresponding things of the outer world, enter into the life (*prâṇa*) and dwell with it in the arteries that go out from the heart and surround the pericardium; on awaking, as sparks rise from the fire, so from the *Âtman* the organs go forth, from them go forth the gods (who rule them), and from them the worlds. "This *Prâṇa*, the *Prajñâtman*, "has entered into the body as into its Self, even to the hair, "even to the nails. As a knife pushed into the sheath, or "fire into a fire-vessel, so has the *Prajñâtman* entered into "the body as into its own Self, even to the hair, even to the "nails. On this Self depend those selves [the organs] as a "people on their chief. As the chief nourishes himself (*bhuñkte*). "through his people, as the people nourish (*bhuñjanti*) the "chief, so does this Self of Cognition nourish itself through "those selves, so do those selves nourish this Self of Cognition... "All evil he puts away, chieftainship over all beings, independence, sovereignty does he gain, who knows thus."

c6.s6.t2.19

In this passage, as Çaṅkara explains, not the *Mukhya prâṇa* or the individual soul, but Brahman is to be understood, since at the very beginning it is said: "I will explain "Brahman to thee" (p. 380, 5); in harmony with this, in the case of the words "whose work this is," we are not to think of the nutrition of the body, which is the work of the *Mukhya prâṇa* (p. 378, 6), or of good and bad works, as they are performed by the individual soul (p. 379, 2), but of this world which was made by Brahman (p. 381, 5). To the objection that marks of the *Mukhya prâṇa* and *Jîva* (the individual soul) are also met with, a reply is to be made in the words of the Sûtram 1, 1, 31: *upâsâtraividhyât* etc. (explained by us in the preceding section, above p. 181) (p. 382, 8). For that only Brahman can be meant, appears from the concluding words, and from the unsurpassable fruit promised in them (p. 382, 13).—To this is added, as *Jaimini* remarks, that in the passage concerning deep sleep, in both question and answer, the individual soul is distinguished from Brahman, into which it enters, and from which it comes forth again (p. 383, 10), and in the Vâjasaneyi recension (Brih. 2, 1, 16) on this occasion it is expressly indicated as the *vijñânamayaḥ puruṣaḥ* (p. 384, 9); from this it is clear, that that from which it goes forth, must be something different from itself, namely the highest Brahman (p. 385, 4).

3. Brahman as the Soul in deep Sleep

c6.s6.t3.1

Sûtras 1, 3, 19--21 and 1, 3, 40.

c6.s6.t3.2

The passage which we considered Chap. XI, 1, d (above p. 158 ff.) follows in Chând. 8, 7--12, the teaching of Indra by Prajâpati (a mythological personification of the creative force, which here stands for Brahman) concerning the nature of the Self.

c6.s6.t3.3

“Prajâpati said: The Self, the sinless, free from old age, free from death, and free from sorrow, without hunger and without thirst, whose wishes are true, whose resolve is true, this Self is to be investigated, this you should seek to know. He wins all worlds and all wishes, who has found this Self and knows it!”—In order to gain knowledge of the Self, the gods send Indra, the Asuras (Demons), Virocana, to Prajâpati. —The three successive answers, which Prajâpati gives to the question, what the Self is, represent three stages of knowledge, in virtue of which the Self is seen either in the body, or in the individual soul, or in the highest soul. The first answer to the question: “What is the Self?” runs thus: “The Self in the body (literally, the person, *puruṣa*), as it is represented in the reflection in the eye, in water, in a mirror.”—Whoever, like Virocana and the Asuras, is satisfied with this view,

c6.s6.t3.4

will see in sensual enjoyment and in the care of the body the highest goal of being, and even after death will deck the corpse with all kinds of trumpery adornments (*bhikshâ*), with garments and decorations,—in order to gain by this means a life in the Beyond.⁸⁵—Virocana is satisfied with this answer. But Indra, knowing that, if the Self be the body, then the Self must be equally affected by the injury and destruction of the body, returns to Prajâpati, who gives him the second answer: "The Self is the soul as it enjoys itself in dream." But this answer is also unsatisfying. The dream-soul is, it is true, free from the injury of the body, yet it is as though it were slain or persecuted, and is therefore not free from suffering. With this doubt Indra returns a second time to Prajâpati and now receives the third explanation: "When one has fallen asleep, and entered altogether wholly and completely into rest, so that he beholds no dream image,—that is the Self, that is the immortal, the fearless, Brahman."—To the objection of Indra, that in this condition consciousness of one's self, and of other things also, ceases, so that it is, as it were, an entering into nothingness, Prajâpati finally answers: "Mortal, verily, O mighty one is this body, possessed of death; it is the dwelling-place of that immortal, bodiless Self. The embodied is possessed by desire and pain; for because he is embodied, no turning away from desire and pain is possible. But the bodiless are not moved by desire and pain.—Bodiless is the wind; the clouds, the lightning, the thunder are bodiless. Therefore as these rise out of the universe [in which they are bound, as the soul is, in the body], and enter into the highest light, and thereby stand forth in their own form, so also this perfect peace [that is, the soul in deep sleep] rises out of this body, and enters into the highest light, and thereby stands forth in its own form: that is the highest spirit, which wanders there, sporting and playing and delighting himself, whether with women or with chariots or “with friends [cf. above p. 161], and thinks no longer of this “servile body, to which the Prâna is yoked as a beast of “draught to the car.—When the eye is directed to the uni- “verse, this [the Prâna] is the spirit in the eye, the eye [it- “self] is [only] the means; and he who wishes to smell, is the “Âtman, the nose is only the means; and he who wishes to “speak, is the Âtman, the voice is only the means; and he “who wishes to hear, is the Âtman, the ear is only the means; “and he who wishes to understand, is the Âtman, the under- “standing is his godlike eye [embracing past and future]; with “this godlike eye, the understanding, he beholds those delights “and enjoys them. Those gods [who were taught like Indra] “in the world of Brahman worship him as the Self; therefore “possess they all worlds and all wishes. He gains all worlds “and all wishes, who has found this Self and knows it. Thus “spoke Prajâpati.”

c6.s6.t3.5

⁸⁵ He who holds the body to be the Self, cannot believe in any life after death. Probably the passage, as also what goes before (*Asurânâm hi eshâ upanishad*) is to be understood ironically.—Çankara's view, of which below, we cannot agree with.

c6.s6.t3.6

In contrast with our view of this passage, which would recognise in the three chief answers of Prajâpati (at least, as they are understood by the questioners) the expression of three philosophical standpoints, the materialistic, for which the Self is the body, the realistic, for which it is the individual soul, and the idealistic, denying all plurality, for which it is the highest soul,—in contrast to this, the only view as it appears to us, which fits the whole context, Çañkara adheres to the view that, already in the first answer, the beholding, individual self which dwells in the eye is to be understood (p. 261, 2), so that “the man (or spirit), who is seen in the eye,” becomes a man “who sees in the eye.” He expressly rejects the view, that the picture mirrored in the eye is meant, because otherwise Prajâpati would not have told the truth (p. 266, 13); but it is not necessary to assume with him, “that Prajâpati, if in “each answer we were to understand something different, would “be an imposter” (p. 268, 8); for the formula with which he each time introduces his explanation: “this will I further ex- “plain to thee,” suits well a view of the Self which grows deeper step by step.—In the third answer also, as Çañkara develops it, the individual soul is to be understood, yet as it passes over to another condition (p. 261, 5), namely, as, rising out of the body, it becomes the highest spirit (p. 262, 3), so its true nature is revealed (p. 262, 6), according to which it is not individual, but the highest Brahman itself (p. 263, 2). "This in fact is, according to passages of scripture like 'that 'thou art' (Chând. 6, 8, 7), the real nature (*pâramârthikam* *svarûpam*) of the individual soul, not the other, which is "formed through limitations (*upâdhi*). So long, therefore, as "one does not put aside the Ignorance which affirms plurality, "which is like taking the trunk of a tree for a man [p. 263, "5; the same image p. 44, 2. 86, 12. 448, 2: cf. Platon, Phileb., "p. 38 D], so long as one has not reached the highest, eternal "Self, appearing according to its own nature, by the know"ledge that 'I am Brahman' (Brih. 1, 4, 10), so long the in"dividual soul is individual. But if a man rises above the "aggregate of body, senses, Manas and Buddhi and has been "taught, by the scripture, that man is not an aggregate of "body, senses, Manas and Buddhi, not a wandering soul, but "on the contrary that of which it is said (Chând. 6, 8, 7), "'that is the real, that is the soul'—consisting of pure in"telligence, 'that thou art,' then he knows the highest eternal "Self which appears according to its own nature; as by this "means he raises himself above the illusion of this [reading "asmât] body etc., he goes to that very highest, eternal Self "which appears according to its own nature; for thus says "the scripture (Muṇḍ. 3, 2, 9): 'Verily, he who knows this "highest Brahman, himself becomes Brahman'" (p. 263, 4 to 264, 3). As such the soul stands forth "in its own form," as gold, when by corroding materials it is freed from the addition of other substances (p. 264, 5), or as the stars, when the day which overpowered them is gone, stand forth by night in their own form (p. 264, 8). However the eternal, spiritual light is never overpowered by anything; on the contrary, like space, it does not come in contact with the sensual world, and stands in contradiction to it (p. 264, 10). The individual soul, so long as it has not been raised above the body [which is what happens in deep sleep], is seeing, hearing, thinking, knowing. Were it so also, after being lifted above the body, then the contradiction [just stated] would not exist [p. 265, 3;

c6.s6.t3.7

I read *avirudhyeta*, optative with a *privativum*. Therefore the position of things is such that we must distinguish between the condition of the soul *before* its separation from the limitations, body, senses, Manas, Buddhi, sensibility to pain and object, and its condition *after* separation from them. Before the separation it is apparently affected by the Upâdhis, as the crystal is by the colour outside it; after the separation, it stands forth in its own nature, as the crystal, after the colour is put away (p. 265). Thus the embodiment or bodilessness of the soul only depends on whether one does or does not distinguish it from the Upâdhis (p. 266, 2), and the distinction of the individual and the highest soul rests only on false knowledge, not on an action of things, which is not possible, because the soul, like space, does not adhere to them (p. 266, 8). Only the knowledge of these, only the (individual) knowledge of differences (*viçeṣa-vijñānam*) is removed in deep sleep, not knowledge in its entirety (p. 267, 7); for the scripture says (Bṛih. 4, 3, 30): "For the knower there is no interruption of knowing."—Some try to evade this identification of the individual with the highest soul, against the context of the passage; but rather is it the case that after the removal of Ignorance, as the imagined serpent becomes a rope, so also the not truly real individual soul, which is stained by doing and suffering, love and hate and other imperfections, and is subject to much that is evil, is transferred through wisdom to the sinless essence of the highest God, opposed to all these imperfections (p. 268, 10).—Yet others, and some of our Vedântins among them, (realistically) take the individual nature of the soul to be absolutely real; against these the Çārīrakam (Bādarāyaṇa's Sūtras) is directed, in order to shew, that "the alone, supreme, eternal, highest God, whose being is knowledge, through the glamour (*māyā*) of Ignorance, like a magician, appears manifold, and that there is no other element of knowledge outside him" (p. 269, 1). Therefore it is true that God is different from the individual soul [so long as such a soul is spoken of], but the individual soul is not different from God [cf. p. 816, 7: the *prapañca* is brahman, but brahman is not the *prapañca*; and p. 1060, 2: the *saṃsārin* is īçvara, but īçvara is not the saṃsārin], except from the standpoint of Ignorance (p. 269, 10). In waking, the soul is the onlooker in the cage of the body and organs, in dream it lingers in the arteries and looks at the dream-pictures built up of the ideas of the waking state; in deep sleep it enters into the highest light, that is, into Brahman (p. 270, 7). For that Brahman is the highest light, follows from the context (p. 327, 8) and from the above mentioned incorporeality, which belongs to Brahman alone (p. 328, 3), as also from the words "that is the highest spirit" (p. 328, 4).

c6.s6.t3.8

4. Brahman as the Soul in the State of Liberation. Sūtras 1, 23, 42—43.

c6.s6.t3.9

The section Bṛh. 4, 3—4 (p. 705—919), whose main theme, according to Çaṅkara, is the above, unfolds a picture of the condition of the soul before and after death, which for richness and warmth, is unique in the literature of India, and perhaps in the literature of the world. We translate the passage with some abbreviations and omissions, which will justify themselves, remarking, however, that much, especially in the first part, remains problematic.

c6.s6.t3.10

(a) Introduction (4, 3, 1—9).

c6.s6.t3.11

To Janaka, king of the Videhas, comes Yājñavalkya, in order to discourse with him.⁸⁶ The king raises the question: "What serves the man [purusha] as light?"—The first answer runs thus: "The sun serves him as a light; for in the light of the sun he sits and moves about, carries on his work and returns home."—"But what serves him as light when the sun is set?"—"The moon."—"And when sun and moon are set?"—"Fire."—"And when sun and moon are set, and the fire has gone out?"—"Voice; therefore, when a man cannot distinguish his own hand, and a voice is raised [reading *uccarati*] somewhere, he goes towards it."—"But when sun and moon are set, and the fire is gone out, and the voice is dumb, what then serves the man as a light?"—"Then his own self (*âtman*) serves him as a light."—"What is, then, this Self?"—"It is that among the life-organs which consists of knowledge, as the spirit shining inwardly in the heart. This remaining the same, wanders through both worlds [this world in waking and in dream, the other in deep sleep and death]; it is as though he meditated, as though he wavering moved [in reality Brahman is without individual knowledge and motion]; for when he has become sleep (*svapno bhûtva*), then [in deep sleep] he transcends this world, the forms of death [all that is transitory, evil]. For, when this spirit is born, when he enters into the body, he is flooded with evil; but when he departs, when he dies, he leaves evil behind. Two conditions are there of this spirit: the present and that in the other world; a middle condition, as third, is that of sleep. While it lingers in this middle condition, it beholds both those conditions, the present [in dream] and that in the other world [in deep sleep]. And according as he has access to the condition in the other world, he proceeds and beholds both, evil [this world, in dream] and bliss [the other world, in deep sleep]."

c6.s6.t3.12

⁸⁶ Sam enena vadishya', iti; this is not "an ingenious conjecture" of Regnaud in "his excellent work on the Upanishads" (as may appear from Max Müller, Upanishads I, p. LXXIII ff.), but a variant, which Dvivedagaṅga had already mentioned in his commentary (p. 1141, 13, ed. Weber); Weber adopted it in his edition of the Çatapathabr. (14, 7, 1, 1), and again recalled the fact in his critique of Regnaud's work (Jenaer Literaturz. 1878, 9. Feb., No. 6), to which Regnaud also refers at the beginning of the Errata.—What Max Müller observes as against this reading, can be explained quite well in the opposite sense: precisely because Yājñavalkya intends to discourse with the king, the narrator finds it necessary to give a new motive for the fact that not he, but the king, speaks first. [For another view compare my Sixty Upanishads p. 463.]

c6.s6.t3.13

(b) Dreamsleep (4, 3, 9—14. 16—18).

c6.s6.t3.14

"But when he sinks to sleep, then he takes from this all-embracing world the wood (*mâtrâm*, materiem), fells it himself and himself builds it, in virtue of his own radiance, his own light;—when he so sleeps, then this spirit serves as its own light. There are no chariots, nor teams, nor roads there, but he forms for himself chariots, and teams, "and roads; there is neither bliss, joy, nor pleasure, but he "creates for himself bliss, joy, and pleasure; there are no "springs, and ponds, and rivers, and but he forms for himself "springs, and ponds, and rivers,—for he is the Creator. On "this subject are these verses:

c6.s6.t3.15

"Putting aside in sleep the bodily (çârîram)
"Sleepless the sleeping organs he beholds;
"Then borrowing their light goes back again
"The golden Spirit, only wandering bird.
"He leaves the Life to guard the lower nest
"And soars immortal from the nest himself,
"Immortal, moving wheresoe'er he wills,
"The golden Spirit, only wandering bird.
"In dream, the Spirit upward, downward moves,
"And, as a God, creates Him many forms,
"Now with fair women sporting joyously,
"And now beholding sights that make him fear.
"His playground canst thou see, but not himself,"—

c6.s6.t3.16

"therefore it is said: 'let him not be wakened suddenly,' for "hard is one to heal, back to whom the Spirit does not find "its way. Therefore it is said also: 'for him it [sleep] is " 'only a state of waking,' for what he sees in waking, the "same also he sees in sleep. Thus therefore this man serves "as a light to itself... Thereon, after he has enjoyed him"self and wandered forth in dream, and beheld good and evil, "he hastens back, according to his entrance, according to his "place, to the condition of waking; and by all that he beholds "in this he is not touched, for to this Spirit nothing adheres; "—and again, after he has taken delight and wandered forth "in the waking state, and after he has beheld good and evil, "he hastens back, according to his entrance, according to his "place, to the condition of dream. And like as a great fish "glides along both banks, on this side and on that, so glides "the Spirit along both conditions, that of dream and that of "waking [without being touched there]."

c6.s6.t3.17

(c) Deep Sleep (4, 3, 19. 21—33).

c6.s6.t3.18

"But like as in yon space a falcon or an eagle, after he "has hovered, wearily folds his pinions, and sinks to rest, thus "also hastens the Spirit to that condition in which, sunk to “sleep, he feels no more desire, nor beholds any more dreams. “That is his form of being, wherein he is raised above long- “ing, free from evil and from fear. For, like as one whom “a beloved woman embraces, has no consciousness of what is “without or what is within, so also the Spirit, embraced by “the Self of knowledge [the Brahman], has no consciousness “of what is without or what is within. That is his form of “being, wherein his longing is stilled, himself is his longing, “he is without longing, and freed from grief. Then the father “is not father, nor the mother, mother, nor the worlds, worlds, “nor the gods, gods, nor the Vedas, Vedas; then is the thief “no thief, the murderer no murderer, the Câṇḍâla no Câṇḍâla, “the Paulkasa no Paulkasa, the ascetic no ascetic, the penitent “no penitent; then he is unmoved by good, unmoved by evil, “then he has vanquished all the torments of the heart.”

c6.s6.t3.19

“If then he sees not, yet he is seeing though he does not “see; since, there is no interruption of seeing for the seeing “one, because he is imperishable; but there is then outside “him no second, no other different from him whom he could “see. So too if then he smells not, nor tastes, nor speaks, “nor hears, nor thinks, nor feels, nor knows, yet is he a “knower, even though he does not know; since, for the knower “there is no interruption of knowing, because he is imperish- “able; but there is then no second outside him, no other “different from him, whom he could understand. For only “where, as it were, another is, can one see, smell, taste, address, “hear, think of, feel and know another.”

c6.s6.t3.20

“He stands in the tumultuous ocean [cf. Çvet. 6, 15] as “beholder, alone and without a second, he whose world is the “Brahman. This is his highest goal, this is his highest joy, “this is his highest world, this is his highest bliss; through “a little part only of this bliss, other creatures have their “life.”

c6.s6.t3.21

“When among men one is fortunate and rich, king over “the others and loaded with all human enjoyments, that is “the highest joy for man. But a hundred of these human “joys are but one joy of the fathers, who have conquered “heaven, and a hundred joys of the fathers who have con- “quered heaven, are but one joy in the world of the Gandharvas, and a hundred joys in the world of the Gandharvas are but one joy of the Gods through works, who by their works have attained to godhead, and a hundred joys of the Gods through works are but one joy of the Gods by birth, and of one learned in the scripture and without falseness and free from desire; and a hundred joys of the Gods by birth are but one joy of Prajâpati’s world and of one learned in the scripture and without falseness and free from desire; and a hundred joys of Prajâpati’s world are but one joy of the Brahman-world, and of one learned in the scripture and without falseness and free from desire. And this is the highest joy, this is Brahman-world.”

c6.s6.t3.22

(d) Death (4, 3, 35–4, 4, 2).

c6.s6.t3.23

“As a cart, when it is heavily laden, creaks as it goes, so also this bodily Self, burdened by the Self of knowledge, goes croaking [rattling], when one is lying at death’s door. And when he falls into weakness, whether it be through old-age or sickness that he falls into weakness, then, as a mango-fruit, a fig, a berry, lets go its stalk, so the Spirit lets go the limbs and hastens backward, according to his entrance, according to his place, back into the Life . . . And like as to a king, when he will forth, the chiefs, and officers, and charioteers, and rulers of villages gather together, so also, at the time of his end, to the soul all life-organs come together, when one is lying at death’s door. When, therefore, the soul falls into swoon, and is as if it had lost all sense, even then these life-organs gather themselves together to the soul; and it takes up these force-elements into itself and withdraweth to the heart; but the Spirit, which dwells in the eye, returns outwards [to the sun, whence it descends, cf. above p. 66]; then recognises he no more forms. Because he has come to unity, therefore he sees not, thus it is said, because he has come to unity, therefore he smells not, tastes not, speaks not, hears not, thinks not, feels not, knows not. Then the point of the heart becomes luminous; from it, after it has become luminous, the Soul departs, whether it be “through the eye, or through the skull, or through any other “part of the body. As it departs, the Life also departs; as “the Life departs, all the life-organs depart with it. It is of “the nature of knowledge, and what is of the nature of know- “ledge, departs after it.”

c6.s6.t3.24

(e) The unliberated Soul after Death (4, 4, 2—6).

c6.s6.t3.25

“Then knowledge and works take it [the soul] by the hand “and their newly gained experience” [if we may read *apūrva-prajñā*].—

c6.s6.t3.26

“As a caterpillar, after it has reached the end of the leaf, “lays hold of another beginning and draws itself over to it, “so also the soul, after it has shaken off the body and let “Ignorance go, lays hold of another beginning, and draws “itself over to it.”

c6.s6.t3.27

“As a goldsmith takes the material of one piece of work, “and out of it hammers another, newer, more beautiful form,⁸⁷ “so this soul also, after it has shaken off the body and let “Ignorance go, shapes itself another, newer, more beautiful “form, whether of the Fathers or the Gandharvas or the “Gods or Prajāpati or the Brahman or other beings.”

c6.s6.t3.28

⁸⁷ Compare Pythagoras in Ovid, Met. XV, 169 seq.: Utque novis facilis signatur cera figuris, Nec manet ut fuerat, nec formas servat easdem, Sed tamen ipsa eadem est, animam sic semper eandem Esse, sed in varias doceo migrare figuras.

c6.s6.t3.29

“Verily, this Self is the Brahman, consisting of Intelligence, “of Manas, of Life, of eye, of ear, consisting of earth, of “water, of wind, of ether, consisting of fire and not of fire, “of pleasure and not of pleasure, of anger and not of anger, “of righteousness and not of righteousness, consisting of all. “And according as anyone consists of this or of that, accord- “ing to his deeds and conduct, according to that is he born; “he who does good will be born as a good man, he who does “evil will be born as an evil man, holy he becomes through “holy work, evil through evil. For verily it is said: ‘Man is “altogether formed of desire (*kāma*); and according as his “desire is, so is his will (*kratu*), and according as his will ‘is, so performs he the work (karman), according as he performs the work, so it befalls him.’—Thereon is this verse:

c6.s6.t3.30

“That he pursues, and strives by deeds to reach,
“Toward which his character and longing is.—
“After he has received reward
“For all that he has here performed,
“He comes back from that other world
“Into this world of deeds below.”

c6.s6.t3.31

“Thus is it with him who desires (kāmayamāna).”

c6.s6.t3.32

(f) Liberation (4, 4, 6—23).

c6.s6.t3.33

“Now as to him who desires not (akāmayamāna)”: “He who is without desire, free from desire, whose desire is stilled, who is himself his desire, his vital spirits do not depart; but Brahman is he and into Brahman he resolves himself. On this is this verse:

c6.s6.t3.34

“When every passion utterly is gone,
“That lurks and nestles in the heart of man,
“Then finds this mortal immortality,
“Then has he reached the Brahman, the Supreme.”

c6.s6.t3.35

“As the slough of a snake lies dead and cast away on an ant-heap, so lies this body then; but the bodiless, the immortal, the Life is Brahman only, is light only.”—

c6.s6.t3.36

“On this are these verses:

c6.s6.t3.37

“A narrow path and old it is, which I have found and trod;
“The sage, released, upon his way to heaven taked this road.
“Whatever name you give to it, white, black, brown, red, or green,
“This is the only path for those who have the Brahman seen;
“On this he goes, who Brahman knows,
“And does the right, in form of light.

c6.s6.t3.38

“The man who lives in Ignorance moves on to blindest gloom;
“To blinder still goes he who would by works escape his doom.
“Yea joyless is this world for man and hidden in black night:
“And to it after death he goes who hath not learned the right.

c6.s6.t3.39

“But he whose mind the inner Self in Thought hath learned to grasp,
“Why should he longer seek to bear the body’s pain and woe?
“For when a man in spite of all the stains of mortal sin,
“The great awakening to the Self hath won, and learned to see,
“Him as creator of the worlds, almighty shalt thou know,
“His is the universe, because the universe is he.

c6.s6.t3.40

“And while we yet are here below, may we this knowledge gain,
“If not, illusion cleaves to us, brings ruin in its train.
“For they who have the knowledge are immortal though they die,
“But they who have not gained it must return to misery.

First 68 of 87 passages. Read on

Linked texts (8)