A Constructive Survey of Upanishadic Philosophy c4.s1.20

c4.s1.20

and other philosophical poems later freely borrow, the only difference between the Upanishads being that the Kaṭhopanishad is more or less a metaphysical work, the Muṇḍaka an emotional work, and the Śvetāśvatara a commixture of philosophy and mysticism. All the three Upanishads seem, moreover, to have been written at a time when the Sāṃkhya and the Vedānta had not yet parted ways. Of these the Kaṭha has its natural termination at the end of the first Adhyāya, as may be seen from the repetition of words at the end of the Adhyāya, as well as the “phalaśruti” which is also given at the same place. The second Adhyāya thus seems to be tacked on to the original redaction of the Upanishad, and even though this latter Adhyāya seems to furnish a sequel to the Nachiketas-Death story as may be seen from the last verse of that Adhyāya, as well as from the repetition of words even here, still, as may be seen by reference to Kaṭhopanishad II. 5. 6, Yama seems at this place just to be supplying an answer to the query of Nachiketas in I. i. 29, which suggests that all the intervening portion is a later addition. The Kaṭha, like the Muṇḍaka and the Śvetāśvatara, will be so often quoted in this work that it would be needless for us to discuss its contents at any length. Two of the most prominent features of the Kaṭha are the description of the “Chariot of the Body”, and the death and dream approaches to the problem of reality. The whole of the Kaṭha is surcharged with lofty ideas about the Immortality of the Soul, as well as suggestions for the practical attainment of Ātman. In one passage, the Kaṭha brings out a distinction regarding the realisation of Ātman in the various worlds. While we are dwelling in this body on earth, we can visualise the Ātman only as in a mirror, that is contrariwise, left being to the right and right being to the left. In the world of the fathers, we visualise the Ātman as in a dream, the image leaving a psychical impression indeed, but being unreal. In the world of the Gandharvas, we are told, we see Him as one sees a pebble under water, the image being true but refracted. It is only in the Brahman-world, we are told, that we can distinguish the Ātman from the non-Ātman as light from shade, that is, we can see the Ātman as in broad day-light. This is a valauable contribution which the Kaṭhopanishad makes to Upanishadic thought.