The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v2.c40.s7.t3.24

v2.c40.s7.t3.24

The resemblance of the Maitrāyaṇīya Upaniṣad⁴ to the Sāṁkhya is of a different character from that of the Kaṭha; it is due in all likelihood to direct Sāṁkhya influence at a much later date. In this Upaniṣad we find an answer attempted to the question why and how the absolute self enters the world and appears in individual form. Prajāpati, existing alone, had no joy; therefore he created offspring as inanimate, and to enjoy them he enters with the breaths into them, thus animating them, and then by means of the organs of sense and action and the mind he has joy of them. But the absolute self, Prajāpati, remains wholly unaffected, though an apparent actor; action actually belongs to the Bhūtātman, or elemental soul, which overcome by the fruits of action passes to a good or evil birth, and is merged in existence, while the true self remains unaffected like the drop of water on a lotus leaf. The elemental soul is overcome by the qualities or factors of nature, Prakṛti, and thus conceives the erroneous impression of individuality; thinking ‘This is I’ and ‘That is mine’ he binds himself as a bird with a snare.¹ But the pure self is not without responsibility for this evil state, for a definite though obscure statement attributes it to the fact that the elemental self is overpowered by the inner Puruṣa.² The composite character of the text reveals itself in the further conception of the self as the enjoyer, while the elemental soul is made out to be the body, which it enjoys.³ We find also the three factors named and described at length, essentially as psychic, and Prajāpati as affected by Sattva, goodness, as a factor is equated with Viṣṇu, as affected by Rajas, activity, with Brahman, and as affected with Tamas, dullness, with Rudra. It is characteristic that the Upaniṣad shows equally knowledge of the development of Yoga doctrine, though its scheme of stages of exercises has six in lieu of the classical eight.⁴ Further, it is markedly pessimistic, the evils of empirical existence being set out with an elaboration of comparison and detail such as is only to be paralleled in the Buddhist texts, which it doubtless knew in some early form. It shows an advanced psychology, for it recognizes the function of individuation, though not as in the Sāṁkhya in its classical form, as placed between intellect and mind and as the source of the latter, but as following on mind and intellect, without any assertion of derivation, and it conceives of the existence of the subtle body, or Liṅga, though it is not clear whether it actually asserts that the Liṅga possesses not merely the fine elements but also the gross elements as part of its composition.⁵ Moreover, the question is actually posed whether it is merely the factors that are really subject to bondage, or the self; the classical Sāṁkhya asserts definitely, though not always consistently, that the self is not really bound, but this is not the view accepted by the Upaniṣad, which insists on the bondage of the self, exhibited in the actions of intellect, mind, and individuation, and promises release when the sense organs, mind, and intellect have ceased to function.⁶