A Constructive Survey of Upanishadic Philosophy c4.s3.5

Language: English

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.