Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A Constructive Survey of Upanishadic Philosophy c4.s3: The Poetry of the Upanishads

A Constructive Survey of Upanishadic Philosophy c4.s3

Language
English

Contents

The Poetry of the Upanishads

c4.s3.1.1

truth of philosophy. The poetical method is applicable to philosophy where an emotion is to be created about the nature of reality, or when this reality becomes a fact of mystical apprehension. When such is the case, the seer gives no heed to the principles of metrification, and the metre he employs is wild and irregular, though at the same time pleasing by its wildness. "Like the Corybantes, who lose all control over their reason in the enthusiasm of the secret dance, and during this supernatural possession are excited to the rhythm and harmony which they communicate to men, these poets create their admired songs in a state of divine insanity." And thus, as we may naturally expect, the Upanishadic poetry is mystical, moral, or metaphysical, rather than heroic, or lyrical, or given to the description of nature or love. It may be remembered that the moral tone of Upanishadic poetry is strictly subservient to its metaphysical implications, and it does not rise, as in the case of the hymn to Varuṇa in Ṛigveda VII. 88, to an expression of the innermost feelings of the human heart, to a confession of sin, or to a prayer for gracious atonement to divinity. The poetry of the Īśopanishad is a commixture of moral, mystical and metaphysical elements; that of the Kenopanishad is psycho-metaphysical; that of the Kaṭhopanishad has as its chief topic the teaching about the Immortality of the Soul and the practical way to the realisation of Ātman;

c4.s3.1.2

the poetry of the Śvetāśvatara rises in the sixth chapter to a theistic description of God, and a representation of Him as *causa sui*; it is only in the Muṇḍakopanishad that we find the highest emotion of which the Upanishads are capable. This of course is not yet of the highest order, but we may say that never elsewhere in the Upanishads do we find the stage of emotionalism that is reached in the Muṇḍaka. There are, however, a number of passages in the Upanishads which are couched in prose, and yet are highly poetic in sentiment. They are what a modern writer has called "conflagrations of prose-poetry". Thus for example, as a piece of sustained imaginative composition in prose, we may take the passage from the Chhāndogya which tells us that "the heaven must be regarded as the supporting beam from which the intermundane region hangs like a bee-hive. The Sun is the honey of the gods as preserved in this bee-hive. The rays which the Sun spreads in different quarters, namely, the eastern, the southern, the western, the northern and the upward directions are the different honey-cells looking in the various directions. The hymns of the four Vedas are the bees which work on the bee-hive from the various sides. The different colours of the Sun are the different kinds of nectar on which the various gods live", and, we are told, these gods live on them not by the ordinary processes of drinking or eating, but by merely "looking" at them (S. 12.

c4.s3.1.3

a)—an expression which gives us an insight into the *θεωρία* of the Upanishadic gods. As an example of allegory in the Upanishads, we may take the eschatological passage from the Kaushītaki which speaks of "the river of agelessness, the hall of omnipresence, the couch of grandeur, the damsel of mind, the hand-maid of vision, the flowers of the worlds which these are intent on weaving, the passage of the Soul through the river merely by the motion of the mind, the haven of safety which it reaches by the assertion of its identification with the highest Brahman—a fit concatenation of circumstances that befall the Soul which is described as the Child of the Seasons." We have said above that the Upanishads do not contain either nature-poetry or love-poetry, and hence the beautiful does not much fall within the scope of Upanishadic thought; but the Upanishads deal nevertheless with the sublime in nature, or with the sublime in the region of mind, or even in the transcendental sphere. As an example of the sublime in nature, we may take the passage from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka which tells us that "by the command of the imperishable Brahman, the sun and the moon stand in their places; by the command of that Brahman, the heaven and the earth stand apart; by the command of that Brahman, the moments and the hours, the days and the nights, the half-months and the months, the seasons and the years, all stand apart;

c4.s3.1.4

by the command of that Brahman, some rivers flow out to the east from the White Mountains, and others to the west or some other quarter" (S. 12. b.). As an example of sublimity in the subjective sphere, we may quote the passage from the Chhāndogya in which we are told that the city within is exactly like the city without, that the heart is the citadel of Ātman as the universe itself is, that just as in the outer world there is that unending space which contains within it the heaven and the earth, the fire and the wind, the sun and the moon, the lightning and the stars, similarly, even here, within this little citadel, are they to be equally found (S. 12. c.). Finally, as an example of sublimity in the transcendental sphere, we have the passage from the Chhāndogya which tells us that "Infinity alone is bliss..... When one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is the Infinite......The Infinite is above, below, behind, before, to the right and to the left......I am above, I am below, I am behind, I am before, I am to the right and to the left...... The Self is above, the Self is below, the Self is behind, the Self is before, the Self is to the right and to the left. He who knows this truly attains Swarājya" (S. 12. d.).

c4.s3.2

16. Let us now turn to a brief discussion of the doctrines of the great philosophers that lived and thought in the Upanishadic period. We shall be considering the doctrines in detail in the later chapters of this work, where they would be found distributed according to problems. At this place, we have to content ourselves with merely a concise statement of them for fear of repetition of the material in the later chapters. It is also necessary for us to introduce our readers to the names of the great philosophers, each of whom made some contribution to the development of Upanishadic thought, and, in the case of the metaphysical philosophers especially, to exhibit the logical link between their doctrines in order to indicate the lines for a fuller and systematic study of them. We shall severely exclude from our present conspectus the names of unhistorical or mythological personages. The dialogue between Indra, Virochana and Prajāpati, for example, merely serves to bring out certain philosophical conceptions, without enabling us to attribute them to historical personages. Indra, Virochana and Prajāpati are all of them mythological personages, and hence we can attribute to neither of them the doctrines that have been advanced in that great story. It is unfortunate that the author of that story should have entirely hidden himself behind it. Similarly, in the dialogue between Indra and Pratardana in the Kaushītaki, between Bhṛigu and Varuṇa in the Taittirīya, and between Nachiketas and Yama in the Kaṭha, Indra, Varuṇa and Yama seem respectively to be unhistorical persons. Nachiketas may have been a historical personage; while there is not much objection to regard Pratardana and Bhṛigu as historical. Then, again, it must be remembered, that many of the doctrines of the Upanishads are entirely untraceable to their authors. Thus, for example, the doctrines of the Muṇḍaka cannot be traced to any particular author. The author must have been a great eclectic indeed; but it is unfortunate that we cannot trace his personality. The doctrines of the Śvetāśvatara, on the other hand, could be definitely attributed to the sage Śvetāśvatara, whose name has been mentioned towards the end of that Upanishad (VI. 21). While, therefore, we shall notice in the following short survey the names of the persons, which, without objection, may be regarded as historical, it is necessary to remember that there must have been many a philosopher who lived, and thought, and died unknown. His work has remained, though his personality has been lost.

c4.s3.3

17. Of the mystical philosophers, Triśaṅku seems indeed to have been a man of great insight, as may be seen from the little scroll that he has bequeathed to us in the Taittirīya Upanishad. Nor must we forget that Maitri himself, the promulgator of the Maitri Upanishad, was a great God-realiser, as may be seen from his description of "the Ātman as realised" in that Upanishad. Rāthītara, Pauruśiṣṭi and Nāka Maudgalya has each of them left to us the virtue which he regarded as of supreme importance, namely, Truth, Penance, and the Study of the Vedas. Mahīdāsa Aitareya seems to have been a philosopher interested in eugenics. His problem was the prolongation of human life, even though he tried to realise it ritualistically (S. 13. a). Āruṇi must have witnessed, if not practised, the fasting philosophy of ancient times (S. 13. b). The sage Kaushītaki was the inventor of the doctrine of Prāṇa as Brahman. He seems to have been an ancient "satyāgrahin," and to have practised the virtue of non-begging. He was the author of the doctrine of "Three Meditations," namely on the Sun;

c4.s3.4

the Full moon, and the New moon, for the fulfilment of some specific desires. Paingya seems to have been the henchman of Kaushītaki in his doctrine that Prāṇa was the lord of the Senses as well as the Mind. Pratardana was a free-thinker of antiquity, disbelieving in the efficacy of external ritualism, advocating the doctrine of the inner sacrifice which is always going on within us, and contributing to thought, probably, the doctrine of Prajñātman, a bio-psycho-metaphysical conception. Śushkabhṛingāra seems to have taught that if a man regarded the Ṛigveda as supreme, all beings would worship him (archante) ; if he regarded the Yajurveda as supreme, all would join (yujyante) to prove his supremacy ; and that if he regarded the Sāmaveda as supreme, all would bow down to him (samnamante). This is a philologico-philosophical contribution of Śushkabhṛingāra made under Brāhmaṇic influence. Finally, the sage Jaivali seems to have held that the Universe exhibits at every stage the principle of sacrifice. “When we cast our glance at the sky, he said, we see that the heaven is a great altar in which the sun is burning as fuel, his rays being the smoke, the day being the light of the sacrificial fire, the quarters the coals, and the intermediate quarters the sparks of the fire ; from the oblation that is offered in this sacrifice, namely Śraddhā, rises the Moon. If we look at the sky again, we see that “parjanya” is the great altar in which the year is burning as fuel, the clouds being the smoke, the lightning being the light of the sacrificial fire, the thunderbolt the coals, and the rumbling of the clouds the sparks of the sacrificial fire ; from the oblation offered in this sacrifice, namely the Moon, rises Rain. Then again, the whole world is a great altar in which the earth burns as fuel, fire being the smoke, night being the light, the moon being the coals, and the stars the sparks of the fire ; from the oblation offered in this sacrifice, namely Rain, rises Food. Fourthly, man himself is a great altar in which the opened mouth is the fuel, the breath the smoke, the tongue the light, the eyes the coals, the ears the sparks; from the oblation offered in his sacrifice, namely Food, rises Seed. Finally, woman herself is a great altar, in which Seed being offered as an oblation, rises Man. In this very peculiar way does Jaivali’s philosophy connect the Śraddhā libation with the Moon, the Moon with Rain, the Rain with Food, the Food with Seed, and finally the Seed with Man. This is his celebrated Doctrine of Five Fires. Finally, when a Man is cremated, from out of the fire of cremation which serves as altar, a lustrous person arises, who goes either to the World of the Gods, or to the World of the Fathers, as his qualifications enable him to proceed”.

c4.s3.5.1

18. Of the cosmological philosophers, a passage from the Chhāndogya (V. 11) tells us that while Uddālaka held that the earth was the substratum of things, Prāchīnaśāla held that it was the heaven which was so, while Buḍila, Śārkarākshya, and Indradyumna held that water, space and air were respectively the substrata of things, and Satyayajña said that the substratum was the Sun—the celestial fire. In this passage we have the names of the persons who held that the elements were the ultimate substrata of things, even though in many other Upanishads these doctrines have been left untraced to philosophers. Raikva alone is elsewhere described as having held with Indradyumna that air was the substratum of all things. Aśvapati Kaikeya, who adopts the synthetic method, is described in the Chhāndogya as having incorporated these views into his doctrine of the Universal Ātman, the Ātman Vaiśvānara, who is “prādeśamātra” and “abhivimāna "—expressions whose meaning we shall determine later on—the heaven constituting the head of the Ātman, the sun his eye, the air his breath, space his body, water his bladder, and the earth his feet (Chhān. V. 18). A transition is made from cosmology to physiology when Satyakāma Jābāla teaches Upakosala that reality is to be found not in the sun, or the moon, or the lightning, but in the person in the eye (Chhān.

c4.s3.5.2

IV), and from cosmology and physiology to psychology, when Gārgya thinks that the physical categories such as the sun, the moon, and the wind, and physiological categories such as the eye are the ultimate reality, and Ajātaśatru, his instructor, tells him that reality is to be found in the deep-sleep-consciousness (Bṛi. II). The very much greater interest that is taken in psychology rather than in cosmology by the Upanishadic philosophers is evident from the way in which they always ask questions about psychological matters. Of the interlocutors of Pippalāda in the Praśna Upanishad, the first, namely, Kabandhī Kātyāyana alone seems to be interested in cosmology when he asks—From what primal Being are all these things created?—while the others are interested in some kind of psychological question or other. Bhārgava Vaidarbhi is interested in physiological psychology, and asks—What sense is the lord of all the others? Kausalya Āśvalāyana is interested in the metaphysics of psychology, and asks the question—From what being Prāṇa, the lord of the senses, was born? Sauryāyaṇi Gārgya is an abnormal psychologist, taking interest in the problem of dreams. Śaibya Satyakāma is interested in mysticism, and asks the question about the efficacy of meditation on Om; while Sukeśī Bhāradvāja is again interested in the metaphysics of psychology, when he asks the question about the nature of the Person with Sixteen Parts.

c4.s3.5.3

The philosophy of Pippalāda emerges in the answers that he gives to these seers. Pippalāda is a great psycho-metaphysician of antiquity, advocating the doctrine of Rayi and Prāṇa, which is equivalent to the Aristotelian doctrine of Matter and Form, as well as the doctrines of the supremacy of the vital breath above the senses and the primary emergence of the vital breath from the Ātman. He regards the state of dream as one in which the mind of man has free play, bodying forth the forms of things inexperienced as well as experienced, and the state of deep sleep as one in which the light of the man is overpowered by the light of the Self. Pippalāda also teaches that by meditation on Om till the time of death, one goes to the celestial regions where one learns from Hiraṇyagarbha to see the all-pervading Person, while in regard to the doctrine of the Person with Sixteen Parts, he prepares the way for the later Sāṃkhya and Vedāntic doctrine of the Liṅga-śarīra. Bhujyu and Uddālaka, who are mentioned in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka are both of them interested in psychical research. The curious personality of Vāmadeva which appears for the first time in Ṛgveda IV. 26, 27, is introduced again in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka I. 4. 10, where he declares himself as having been Manu and the Sun in a previous birth, as well as in the Aitareya II. 4, where the philosophy of "Three Births" is declared to have been in consonance with his teaching.

c4.s3.5.4

This sage, who seems to have been intensely interested in the question of rebirth, declares that "while yet in embryo he tried to know all the births of the gods. A hundred iron citadels tried to hold him; but a hawk that he was, with swiftness he came down to the earth. In embryo indeed did Vāmadeva speak in this manner." Vāmadeva seems to have held that there were three births of man: the first birth of a man occurs when the spermatozoon combines with the ovum; his second birth occurs when a child is born to him; his third birth takes place when he is himself reborn after death. Bhr̥igu, who is mentioned in the Taittirīya, was a great metaphysical psychologist, who held that food, life-breath, mind, intellect and bliss constituted, in the order of gradation, the expressions of Ātman. Finally, we are introduced in Br̥ihadāraṇyaka IV to the doctrines of certain psycho-metaphysicians, when we are told that Jitvan Śailini held that speech was the highest reality; Udaṅka Śaulbāyana that breath was the highest reality; Varku Vārṣṇa, Gardabhī-vipīta Bhāradvāja, Satyakāma Jābāla and Vidagdha Śakalya held respectively that the eye, the ear, the mind and the heart constituted the ultimate reality; while Yājñavalkya, following the synthetic method, found a place for each of these doctrines in his final synthesis.

c4.s3.6

19. Of the metaphysical philosophers, Śāṇḍilya, Dadhyach, Sanatkumāra, Āruṇi and Yājñavalkya are the most prominent, the last being the greatest of them all.

c4.s3.7

Metaphysical philosophers.

c4.s3.8

(i) The complete philosophy of Śāṇḍilya is preserved for us in that small section of the Chhāndogya, namely, III. 14, where Śāṇḍilya formulates for us the main doctrines of his philosophy. In the first place, he gives us the cosmological proof of the Absolute which he calls “Tajjalān”, that from which things are born, to which they repair and in which they live. Secondly, he teaches the doctrine of Karmanand says that fate alone betakes a man in the next world for which he has paved the way by his works in this life. In the third place, he gives us a characterisation of Ātman in thoroughly positive terms. This stands against the later negative theology of Yājñavalkya. Fourthly,

c4.s3.9

Sandilya.

c4.s3.10

he tells us that the Ātman is both great and small; greater than the great, and smaller than the small; infinite and infinitesimal. Lastly, he tells us that the end of human life consists in being merged in the Ātman after death, a consummation, which, he is sure he will reach.

c4.s3.11

(ii) The sage Dadhyach who, like Vāmadeva, is a sage of Vedic repute, as referred to in Ṛgveda I. 116. 12, is also a sage who occupies a prominent place in Bṛhadāraṇyaka II. The “Madhuvidyā” referred to in the Ṛgveda is in this Upanishad expounded in great detail. As regards his personal history, we are told in the Ṛgveda that he knew the secret of the “Madhuvidyā,” and that he had been enjoined upon by Indra, on pain of capital punishment, not to disclose the secret to anybody. The Aśvins wanted to learn that wisdom from Dadhyach, and, because they were convinced that Indra would fulfil his threat, they first cut off the head of Dadhyach themselves, and substituted on his trunk the head of a horse. Dadhyach thereupon spoke by the horse’s head to the Aśvins, and taught them the “Madhuvidyā.” Indra was very wroth to see that the secret had been imparted by Dadhyach, and so he cut off the head from the body of Dadhyach, upon which, the Aśvins re-substituted the original head, and Dadhyach became whole again! It was this sage Dadhyach who is introduced in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka as having held the doctrine of the mutual interdependence of things, because all of them are indissolubly connected in and through the Self. To quote from the History of Indian Philosophy Volume II, “all things are in mutuum commercium, because they are bound together by the same vinculum substantiale, namely, the Self. The earth, says Dadhyach, is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of

c4.s3.12

Dadhyach.

c4.s3.13

the earth, just because the same ‘lustrous,’ ‘immortal’ Self inhabits them both. The fire is the essence of all things, and all things are the essence of fire, just because the immortal self is the essence of both. Similarly, are the wind, the sun, the space, the moon, the lightning, the thunder, the ether, and even law, truth, and humanity the essence of all things whatsoever, and all things are the essence thereof, inasmuch as the same law, the same element, the same indissoluble bond connects them both. Finally, the individual Self is itself the essence of all things, and all things are the essence of the individual Self, inasmuch as both of them are held together by the same Universal Spirit. It is this Universal Spirit which is the lord and king of all things. As all the spokes are contained between the axle and felly of a wheel, all things and all selves are connected in and through the Supreme Self. It is on account of the Supreme Self, that all things stand related together. All things appear on the back-ground of this eternal curtain. ‘Nothing exists that is not covered by the Supreme Self. He becomes like unto every form, and all the forms are only partial revelations of Him. The Lord appears many through his magic power’. Thus does Dadhyach teach the doctrine of the supreme existence of the one, and the apparent existence of the many.”

c4.s3.14

(iii) The third philosopher who invites our attention is the sage Sanatkumāra of the Chhāndogya, the preceptor of Nārada. Leaving aside his sorites of psychological, physical and metaphysical categories which is of little consequence for philosophy, let us note here the points of value in his philosophy. In the first place, Sanatkumāra seems to teach a spiritual hedonism. Happiness—and, in Sanatkumāra’s hands, happiness becomes the equivalent of spiritual happiness—is the spring of all action; action is the cause of faith; faith, of belief; when a man believes, he thinks; when he thinks, he knows; and when he knows, he reaches the truth. In this way, happiness, action, faith, belief, thought, knowledge and truth constitute, in Sanatkumāra’s hands, a moral ladder to realisation (VII. 17-22). Secondly, it is Sanatkumāra who teaches the doctrine of Bhūman. “Bhūman” is that infinite happiness which arises by the vision of the divinity all around. When anything else is seen, that is “Alpa.” Thus all possessions in the shape of cows and horses, elephants and gold, servants and wives, lands and palaces, are of little consequence as contrasted with Bhūman (VII. 23-24). Thirdly, the realisation of Bhūman occurs when an experience such as is implied in the expression “Sohamātmā” is attained (VII. 25). Lastly, Sanatkumāra teaches that Ātman is the source of all things whatsoever. From Ātman spring hope and memory; from Ātman spring space, light and waters; from Ātman everything unfolds, in Ātman everything hides itself. Ātman is the source of all power, all knowledge, all ecstasy (VII. 26).

c4.s3.15

(iv) Āruṇi, the greatest of the Upanishadic philosophers, barring of course Yājñavalkya, though he has been reported to be the latter’s philosophical teacher—as may be seen also from a number of points of resemblance between Āruṇi and Yājñavalkya, especially in regard to their theories of Sleep and Dream on the one hand, and of Monistic Idealism and Doctrine of Appearance on the other—is a philosopher, who, like his other compeers of the Upanishadic period, is a great psychometaphysician. In regard to his psychological theories, we must remember that he advances the “Fatigue” theory of sleep (VI. 8. 2), and tells us that in the state

c4.s3.16

Aruni.

c4.s3.17

of sleep, the individual Self becomes one with the Ātman (VI. 8. 1)—points which have become the current coin of Upanishadic thought. In regard to departing consciousness, he teaches that, while a man is dying, his speech first becomes merged in the mind, then his mind becomes merged in breath, then breath becomes merged in light, and finally light becomes merged in the deity (VI. 15)—a theory which Yājñavalkya later borrows and expatiates upon. In regard to his metaphysical doctrines, he views Substance from the cosmological point of view, regarding it as the final substratum of all things, in fact as the material cause of the universe, just as iron is the material cause of all iron-weapons, and gold of gold-ornaments (VI. 1. 4-6). Secondly, he tells us that this underlying Substance is "alone real", all else is merely a name. Āruṇi is an extreme nominalist who paves the way for the Doctrine of Illusion (VI. 1. 4-6). Thirdly, he tells us that what thus exists as the primal hypostasis cannot be regarded as Not-being, for from Not-Being nothing can come. Hence the hypostasis is Being (VI. 2. 1-2). This Being produces from itself first fire, then water, then the earth, in that order (VI. 2. 3-4). Interpreted generally, the Sanskrit words he uses, namely Tejas, Ap, and Anna, could be interpreted as meaning respectively the energizing principle, liquid existence, and solid existence. Fourthly, all things that exist in this world, animate as well as inanimate, are made up of these elements by the process of Trivṛitkaraṇa, a doctrine which Āruṇi first enunciates. Things are unreal; the Elements alone are real; and more than the Elements, Being, which is the root of them all (VI. 3-4). Next Āruṇi teaches that it is this Being which is also the Self in man. "That art Thou" is the recurring instruction of Āruṇi to his son Śvetaketu (VI. 8 ff).

c4.s3.18

The spirit in nature is thus at the same time the spirit in man. It is interesting to note the parallel of Āruṇi's idea with Green's. Cosmologically, this Being is the subtle essence which underlies phenomena, and which can be grasped only by faith (VI. 12), and by apt instruction from the teacher (VI. 14). Biologically, it is the supreme life-principle which gives life to the universe. The branches may die and yet the tree lives; but when the tree dies, the branches die also. Similarly, the universe may vanish, but God remains; but God cannot vanish, and hence the latter alternative is impossible (VI. 11). Psychologically, it annihilates all individualities. Do not juices lose their individuality in honey, asks Āruṇi (VI. 9)? Do not the rivers lose their individuality in the ocean (VI. 10)? Even likewise do all souls lose their individuality in the Ātman. Viewed from the moral point of view, the Ātman is truth. One who makes alliance with truth, makes alliance with Ātman also (VI. 16). Metaphysically, the Ātman pervades all. As salt may pervade every particle of water into which it is put, the Ātman fills every nook and cranny of the universe. There is nothing that does not live in Ātman (VI. 13). We thus see how Āruṇi boldly postulates an idealistic monism in which there is no room for difference even from within.

c4.s3.19.1

(v) Yājñavalkya, like his teacher Āruṇi, is a great psycho-metaphysician. We shall consider the points of his metaphysics first, and then go on to the consideration of his psychological doctrines. In fact, Yājñavalkya's philosophy would be so much called upon in our later Chapters, that we can only indicate it here very briefly and for the purpose of giving a synoptic view of his philosophy. We shall not consider the points of Yājñavalkya's philosophy in the order in which he answers the questions of his wife, and of the philosophers that meet him in King Janaka's court, and of King Janaka himself in the second, third and fourth chapters respectively of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka. We shall consider them only logically. In Chapter III of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, he had, no doubt, a formidable number of intellectual adversaries to grapple with. Aśvala and Śākalya were interested more or less in ritualism and theology, and so they could be easily disposed of; but Jāratkārava, who was interested in eschatology Bhujyu, whom we have already met with as a psychical researcher, Ushasta, who was interested in the nature of Ultimate Reality, Kahola, who wanted to know the practical way to the realisation of Ātman, Gārgī and Uddālaka, who were both interested in the problem of immanence, the one dynamically, the other statically, were, in any case, a formidable list of opponents.

c4.s3.19.2

The philosophy of Yājñavalkya which emerges in his conversation with these adversaries as well as his wife and king Janaka, may be briefly set down as follows. He teaches that all objects are centred in the Self, as all thoughts are centred in the mind, as all touches in the skin, as all waters in the ocean (II. 4. 11). The Ātman pervades all. Yājñavalkya also uses the simile of the immanence of salt in water (II. 4. 12), borrowing it probably from his teacher Aruṇi. Secondly, Yājñavalkya teaches that all things exist for the Self; if we do not so regard them, they would vanish for us (II. 4. 6). Thirdly, he tells us that all things are dear for the sake of the Self. In every act of mental affection, the Ātman is calling unto Ātman. The realisation of Ātman is the end of all endeavour (II. 4. 5). Fourthly, Yājñavalkya says that this Ātman alone is real; all else is "ārtam"—a mere tinsel-show (III. 4. 2 and III. 5. 1). Yājñavalkya then proceeds to characterise the Ātman in negative terms ; the Ātman is neither large nor small, neither short nor long; he is flavourless, eyeless, odourless, and quality-less (III. 8. 8). Contrast this negative theology of Yājñavalkya with the positive theology of Śāṇḍilya. As a proof of the existence of Ātman, Yājñavalkya draws upon the argument from order : Ātman is the “ bund ” of all existence : our very hours and days are measured by this Ātman (III. 8. 9). The Ātman is universally immanent. He is the inner controller of all things.

c4.s3.19.3

We are merely like little dolls, and throw out our hands and feet according as the great Thread-puller, Ātman, wishes to make us dance (III. 7). The Ātman is the ultimate light of man ; all other lights are lights by sufferance. When Ātman is realised as the light of man, one reaches self-consciousness (IV. 3. 1-6). The Ātman alone is the ultimate hearer, seer, thinker : there is no thinker beside Him (III. 4. 2). The Ātman perceives himself. Only when there is a duality, then one may see another ; but when One alone is, processes of perception and thought are alike impossible, and we are reduced to a state of solipsism (II. 4. 14). But Yājñavalkya takes care to say that the organs of perception of the percipient do not cease to function. That, from the epistemological side, is the relieving feature of his solipsism (IV. 3. 23-30). In psychology, Yājñavalkya teaches, like other Upanishadic philosophers, that when the state of dream occurs, the Ātman spreads out his own light (IV. 3. 9). The Ātman in this state moves out from his nest, guarding it nevertheless with breath (IV. 3. 12). It must be remembered, however, that the Ātman only seems to move, or only seems to imagine in the state of dream, and does not really move or imagine (IV. 3. 7). Yājñavalkya advises that when a man is dreaming, let no one wake him up suddenly, for fear, apparently, that the Soul may depart (IV. 3. 14). A father in that state is not a father; a mother, a mother; a thief a thief;

c4.s3.19.4

a murderer, a murderer; a Cāṇḍāla, a Cāṇḍāla; and analogically, a Brahmin a Brahmin (IV.3.22). As regards the state of sleep, he advocates, like Āruṇi, the fatigue theory (IV.3.19). He tells us, furthermore, that sleep is a twilight condition, where one sees this world as well as the other world (IV.3.99). As regards departing consciousness, Yājñavalkya tells the story of the process of death in such a realistic fashion that we cannot but regard him as an exceedingly shrewd observer of nature. At the time of death, the corporeal self is mounted on by the intelligent self, the Śārīra Ātman by the Prājña Ātman, and it moves along groaning like a heavy-laden cart (IV. 3. 35). Before death occurs, the person in the eye first turns away (IV. 4. 1). The end of the heart is lighted, and by that light, the soul departs either by the way of the eye, or the head, or any other part of the human body (IV. 4. 2). His "Karman" alone accompanies him: it is the guardian of his destiny (IV. 4. 5). It is probably this doctrine of "Karman" that, we may say, Yājñavalkya imparted to Jāratkārava in III. 2. 13, and thus silenced him. According to Yājñavalkya, it seems that only when the Ātman has prepared another abode for himself that he leaves the body. Not unless it finds another blade to rest upon would a caterpillar leave its original blade (IV. 4. 3).

c4.s3.19.5

Yājñavalkya says also that the newer existence must be even a brighter existence: does not the goldsmith create from the old gold a newer and brighter form (IV. 4. 4)? If the Self has left any desires in him while yet he lives in his body, he returns from his sojourn to this existence again; if no desires be left in him, he becomes one with Brahman (IV. 4. 6). At that time no consciousness remains. Consciousness is merely a "fleeting" phenomenon due to the entry of the Ātman in the elements which produce the bodily form (II. 4. 12). Yājñavalkya’s wife was really frightened at the pass to which Yājñavalkya’s philosophy had led, but we, who understand Yājñavalkya’s absolute idealism may not wonder if, from that point of view, he regarded even transmigration as a delusion. If we may be allowed to use Yājñavalkya’s own manner of philosophising, we may well ask, when the Ātman alone is, at all places and at all times, from what would he transmigrate, and to what? But all this is only implied in Yājñavalkya. For fear of disturbing the ordinary routine of thought, of which his wife supplies us with an illustration, Yājñavalkya hastily excuses himself from the *impasse* to which his doctrine had led him, by saying that sufficient for the nonce was the wisdom he had imparted (II. 4. 13).

c4.s3.20

20. Let us now examine somewhat the social condition in which these philosophers lived and made their speculations. (i) It seems the castes did evidently exist at the time of the Upanishads. We have the formulation of the caste system so far back as at the time of the Purusha-sūkta, which must be, in any case, considered anterior to the Upanishads. In the Bṛihadāraṇyaka, there is a very unorthodox theory about the origin of castes. This Upanishad does not argue, like the Bhagavadgītā at a later date, that the castes were created by God according to "qualities and works." On the other hand, we are told in the Bṛihadāraṇyaka that Brahman was the first to exist; but because it was alone, it did not fare well, and therefore it produced a better form, namely Kshatriya-hood. It was thus that from the original Brahman were created such heavenly deities as Indra, Varuṇa, Soma, Rudra, Parjanya, Yama, Mṛityu and Īśa. These constitute the warrior caste in the heavenly kingdom. Furthermore, after having created even Kshatriya-hood, Brahman did not fare well; and therefore it created Vaiśya-hood in the heavenly kingdom, namely the Vasus, the Rudras, the Ādityas, the Maruts and the Viśvedevas. But even then it thought it was deficient, and therefore, it created the Śūdra order, represented in the heavenly kingdom by the god Pūshan. In order to give itself completeness, again, Brahman created Dharma or Law, which probably binds all these castes together. Finally, Brahman assumed the form of Agni who was the Brahmin of the gods, and then we are told that the castes on the earth were created after the pattern of the castes in the heaven (S. 14). In this unorthodox theory, we have the origin of the earthly caste system on the pattern of a heavenly caste system almost in the manner in which the ectypes in Plato’s theory of Ideas are merely replicas of the archetypes. Then, again, as regards the existence of Āśramas at the time of the Upanishads, we learn from the Taittirīya Upanishad that those of the student and the householder did definitely exist (S.15. a) ; while we have to conclude from other passages where one is advised “ to leave the world as soon as one becomes weary of it ” that the order of the recluses did also exist ; and finally, from such Upanishads as the Muṇḍaka as well as the mention of Saṃnyāsa elsewhere, that the order of the Saṃnyāsins came last and was the completion of the three previously mentioned. In the Chhāndogya we have all the four orders enumerated deliberately. The householders are advised to give themselves up to sacrifice, study and charity; the recluses to penance; and the students to a life of celibacy with the master and extreme emaciation in his service. All these verily reach the holy worlds after death ; but we are told that he alone who lives in Brahman, referring probably to the life of the Saṃnyāsin, attains to immortality (S. 15. b). When we rearrange these orders, we find that the foundations of the future Āśrama system are already to be found firmly laid even in such an old Upanishad like the Chhāndogya. So far about castes and orders at the time of the Old Upanishads.

c4.s3.21

(ii) Now about the position of women in society in the Upanishadic times. In the Upanishads, we meet with three chief different types of women : Kātyāyanī, the woman of the world, who is only once mentioned in the Bṛihadāraṇyaka ; Maitreyī, the type of a spiritual woman, a fit consort to the philosopher Yājñavalkya ; and Gārgī, the Upanishadic suffragette, who, fully equipped in the art of intellectual warfare, dares to wrangle with Yājñavalkya even at the court of King Janaka where a number of great philosophers are assembled, and declares that she would send two missiles against her adversary, Yājñavalkya, and that if he succeeds in shielding himself against those missiles, he may certainly be declared to be the greatest of the philosophers that had assembled. Bold and sturdy, she presses Yājñavalkya to a *regressus ad infinitum*, and had not Yājñavalkya checked her impudence by an appeal to the *argumentum ad caput*, she would have succeeded in nonplussing Yājñavalkya. But, even though she was to all appearances vanquished, she appears again a second time with two more moderate questions, and elicits from Yājñavalkya his doctrine of dynamic immanence (S. 16).

c4.s3.22

(iii) As regards the relations of the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas, the Bṛihadāraṇyaka declares that a Brahmin ought to take his seat below a Kshatriya at the Rājasūya sacrifice, thus giving him the honour that he deserves. On the other hand, the Kshatriya must remember that because Kshatrahood has been born from Brahminhood, therefore, even though he may attain to the highest state, he must rest upon the Brahmin as his source, that is, must live under the control and guidance of the Brahmins (S. 17. a). In the Chhāndogya we are told by Jaivali that Āruṇi was the first man in the Brahmin circle to receive spiritual wisdom, and that therefore it was the Kshatriya caste that reigned supreme (S. 17. b). In the Bṛihadāraṇyaka, we are told that it was only when Āruṇi went with the desire of living like a pupil to Jaivali, whom he regarded as superior to himself, that Jaivali could be prevailed upon to impart to him his spiritual wisdom (S. 17. c); and yet again in the Kaushītaki King Chitra Gārgyāyaṇi complimented Āruṇi who had gone to him, fuel in hand, upon having approached him in an humble manner and therefore having been really worthy of Brahminhood, whereupon he proceeds to instruct him in spiritual knowledge (S. 17. d). All these passages indicate both the earthly and the spiritual supremacy of Kshatriyahood to Brahminhood. On the other hand, in certain passages as in the Bṛihadāraṇyaka and Kaushītaki, where Gārgya, the proud Brahmin, had gone to King Ajātaśatru to learn wisdom, we read that Ajātaśatru told him that it was against the "usual practice" that a Kshatriya should instruct a Brahmin in spirituality, but that Ajātaśatru in the course of his conversation with Gārgya felt his superiority so much that he could not be prevented from imparting his higher wisdom to Gārgya, when, fuel in hand, the latter approached him in an humble manner (S. 18). It would seem from the above passage that the Brahmins were usually superior to Kshatriyas in spiritual knowledge, but that occasionally a Kshatriya might be superior to a Brahmin in that respect. Finally, in certain passages from the Upanishads, especially in the Bṛihadāraṇyaka and the Maitri, we find that certain Brahmin sages stood very much superior to Kshatriya kings, who learnt wisdom from their Brahmin masters. “Here, O Yājñavalkya, is my kingdom,” said King Janaka when he stood astonished at the great intellectual and spiritual wisdom of the Sage, “and here am I at your service” (S. 19. a). In the Maitri Upanishad we read that King Bṛhadratha, filled with repentance and remorse, went to the Sage Śākāyanya, and implored him to help him out of the world of existence, as one would help out a frog from a waterless well (S. 19. b). From these passages, it would seem that the Brahmins did very often maintain their intellectual and spiritual superiority. It must be remembered, however, that occasionally a Kshatriya, and occasionally a Brahmin, would be the intellectual and spiritual head of his age according to his abilities and powers, and that no charter was given either to Brahmin-hood or Kashatriya-hood that it alone should be the repository of intellectual and spiritual wisdom, and that, therefore, it would be ridiculous to argue, on the one hand, that the Brahmins alone, or on the other, that the Kshatriyas alone, were the custodians of spiritual culture, and thus, as in modern times, even a man belonging to the lowest order of society could, if he possessed the necessary ability and means, be in the vanguard of those who knew.

c4.s3.23

21. It is only in the fitness of things that we should close this introductory chapter with a statement of the chief problems that emerge out of a consideration of the doctrines of the Upanishadic philosophers, as well as exhibit their inter-relation. Wonder, as Plato said, was the root of philosophy in Greece as in India. The Upanishadic philosophers, we have seen, ceased to understand the forces of nature as

Linked texts (10)