The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v2.c40.s12.4

v2.c40.s12.4

Here and there we have views which are sound so far as they go; the allegory of life¹ as a Soma sacrifice postulates that the fee shall be asceticism, liberality, right dealing, non-injury to life, and truthfulness, and a list of a student's duties is given in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad.² The student is bidden by his teacher not to be negligent of truth, virtue, welfare, prosperity, study and teaching, and in due course propagation of children. Further, duties to the gods, the Fathers, and parents are inculcated, and teachers and guests are to be ranked as gods. Those acts which are irreproachable alone should be practised, and good deeds alone should be revered. Refreshments with a seat should be provided for deserving Brahmans. Giving is regulated;³ one should give with faith, one should not give without faith, one should give with plenty, with modesty, with fear,⁴ with sympathy. Further, a very useful practical rule is enjoined; if the student has doubt concerning an act or conduct, then recourse should be had to the attitude of Brahmans, competent to judge, apt, devoted, not harsh, lovers of virtue; as they behave themselves in such a case, so should the student demean himself, and similarly should he act in regard to persons who are spoken against. There is thus given as the norm of conduct the average righteous man, who embodies in himself the standard of action. In the same Upaniṣad⁵ in addition to the essential study and teaching a further list is given which runs: right dealing, truthfulness, asceticism, self-restraint, tranquility, maintenance of the sacred fire, the offering of the Agnihotra, hospitality, courtesy, and duties to children, wives, and grandchildren. Another text sees in the voice of the thunder the rules 'Be restrained, liberal, merciful'.⁶ So we have condemned as sinners the stealer of gold, the drinker of Surā, the murderer of a Brahman, and the defiler of his teacher's bed, and their associates,⁷ while Açvapati, the prince, boasts that his kingdom has no thief, churl, or drunkard, none who neglect the sacrifice or the sacred lore, no adulterer or courtesan.⁸ This is, it is clear, purely elementary: the failure to rise to the conception even of a system of ethics is a sign not so much, as Deussen⁹ suggests, of the virtue of the age, which is not proved by any other evidence, but rather of the lack of ethical sense on the part of the Brahmans. Philosophically also the doctrine of the absolute as all-pervading resulted in the negation of human responsibility: it is the deity who really acts in and through man, and the latter cannot be blamed for what he thus seemingly does.¹