The word ‘Karman’ in the Kaushika Upanishad does not mean work, but it denotes creation or the world. — 124.

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 115 из 723Следующая ⇒

SUTRA I. 4. 15.

समाकर्षात्॥१.४.१५॥

samākarṣāt ..1.4.15..

… Samakarshat, from its relevency, from its connection. By drawing in (the word Brahman from a contiguous sentence).

15. The words Asat and Avyakrita also denote Brahman, because of the relevency of that meaning in the passages where they occur; and because the word Brahman may be drawn into the sentences, where these words occur, from the passage near them. — 123.

COMMENTARY

The word Asat occurs in Taittiriya Upanishad, II., 7, in the following passage:

In the beginning this was non-existent (Asat). From it was born what exists.

This passage is preceded by the following:

He unshed, may I be many, may I grow forth. He brooded over Himself (like a man performing penance). After He had thus brooded, He sent forth (created) all, whatever there is. Having Bent forth, He entered into it. Having entered it, He became Sat (what is manifest) and Tyat (what is not manifest), defined and undefined, supported and not supported, (endowed with) knowledge and without knowledge (as stone), real and unreal. The Satya (true) became all this whatsoever, and therefore, the wise call it (the Brahman) Satya (the true).

On this there is this Shloka: In the beginning this was non-existent, Asat.

This shows that the word ‘Asat’ refers to Brahman, which is the subject under discussion in the previous verse. The word here does not moan i non-being’’ or ‘non-existent? but it shows that before the creation, the distinction of names and forms did not exist, and Brahman also then did not exist in the sense that he was not connected with names and forms. And as he had then no name and form, he is said to be Asat or non-existent. In fact, the text of the Taittiriya Upanishad in this portion deals with Brahman, for in a passage in the same Valli, (II., 4. 1) we find it stated that Brahman is bliss, and this Brahman called bliss which is treated in verse V, is the subject-matter of this seventh Anuvaka also.

Note: The word Asat here cannot mean matter or non-being, because in this very passage we find that the description given of it can apply only to Brahman, and not to matter or non-being. To understand it we give the whole passage here:

«In the beginning this was non-existent, Asat. From it was born what exists (Sat). That made its Self, therefore, it is called the Self-made. That which is Self-made is a flavour (can be tasted) for only after perceiving a flavour one can perceive pleasure. Who could breathe, who could breathe forth, if that bliss (Brahman) existed not in the ether (in the heart)? For he alone causes blessedness».

When he finds freedom from fear and rest in that which is invisible, incorporeal, undefined, unsupported, then he has obtained the fearless. For if he makes but the smallest distinction in it, there is fear for him. But that fear exists only for one who thinks himself wise, (not for the true sage).

On this there is also this Shloka:

«From terror of it (Brahman) the wind blows, from terror the sun rises; from terror of it Agni and Indra, yea, Death runs as the fifth».

This shows that Asat here cannot mean anything but Brahman. Even in this sixth Anuvaka the seer of this Upanishad clearly says that Brahman is not Asat in the literal meaning of that word, therefore when he uses the words «Asat was in the beginning», he uses it in a sense totally distinct from its ordinary denotation. Thus in the sixth Anuvaka we find:

«He who knows the Brahman as non-existing, Asat, becomes himself non-existing, Asat. He who knows the Brahman as existing, Sat, him we know himself as existing, Sat».

In the Chhandogya Upanishad also we find that Asat in the sense of non-being absolutely is not the source of creation. Thus Chhandogya Upanishad, VI, 2. 1., begins with the famous text: ‘Sad eva somyedam agra asid ekam evadvitiyam’, which means «Being was in the beginning one only, without an equal» That passage refutes later on the view that Asat was in the beginning. This also shows that Asat could not but mean Brahman, and it means Brahman in his latent state, when this world, which we call «Sat» was not The Chhandogya passage VI., 2. 1, starts by putting two hypotheses, namely, Sat was in the beginning, and Asat was in the beginning and then it goes on to say:

«Some say that Asat was in the beginning, one only without a second». And it refutes this theory by saying, «How can it be, that being or Sat could come out of non-boing or Asat?» The implication is how can that which is absolutely non-being or Asat can have any relation to time also, and how can we say that Asat was? To say that Asat was meant that non-being existed, which would be an absurd proposition. For all these reasons the Asat of Taittiriya Upanishad refers to Brahman.

Similarly, the word Avyakrita of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, I, 4. 5., also means Brahman there. It literally means undeveloped and is generally applied to Prakriti. But in the passage above referred to, it could not have that moaning, To understand this we give the whole passage here:

Now all this was then undeveloped (Avyakrita). It became developed by form and name, so that one could say, ‘He, called so and so, is such a one’. Therefore, at present also all this is developed by name and form, so that one can say, ‘Ho, called so and so. is such a one’.

He (Brahman or the Self) entered thither, to the very tips of the finger nails, as a razor might be fitted in a razor-case, or as fire in a fireplace.

He cannot be seen, for, in part only, when breathing, he is breath by name, when speaking, speech by name; when thinking, mind by name. All these are but the names of His acts. And he who worships (regards Him as the one or the other), does not know him, for He is apart from this (when qualified) by the one or the other (predicate). Let men worship Him, as Self, for in the Self all these are one. This Self is the footstep of everything, for through it one knows everything. And as one can find again by footsteps what was lost, thus he who knows this finds glory and praise.

The word Avyakrita used in the above passage is to be understood to mean Brahman as the Inner Self of the undeveloped. We must draw in the word Brahman from the subsequent passage «he entered in it up to the nails», and explain Avyakrita in the light of the subsequent passage. It would thus appear that Brahman alone, by the mere force of his will, becomes developed in name and form, and Avyakrita or undeveloped, therefore, means the state of Brahman, in so far as He has not yet evolved through name and form. Otherwise, if Avyakrita were taken as referring to Prakriti, it would go against the whole current of the Vedanta texts, and against the Sutra which declares that all Vedanta texts refer to Brahman. It is thus a settled conclusion that Brahman is the sole cause of the universe, and not Pradhana.

Adhikarana V — The Purusha of the Kaushika Upanishad

is Brahman

The Sankhya raises another objection, and the author refutes it. In the Kaushitaki Brahmana the sage Balaki promises to teach Brahman by saying, ‘I shall tell you Brahman’. And he goes on to describe sixteen things as Brahman, beginning with the sun. All these, however, are set aside by the king Ajatashatru who says none of them is Brahman. When the sage Balaki is thus silenced, Ajatashatru gives the teaching about Brahman in these words:

«He who is the cause of these different persons and to whom there belongs this Karman, He is to be known».

Note: The Sankhyas explain the above Mantra thus:

‘He who is the cause of these different Purushas and to whom there belongs this Karman, He indeed is to be known.

Note: Balaka mentions first the Purusha in the sun as Brahman. Then on being refuted by Ajatasatru, he goes on mentioning the various Spirits (Purushas) in the moon, in die lightning, in the thunder-cloud, in the wind, in the ether, in the fire, in the waters, in the mirror, in the shadow, in the echo, in the sound, in the sleep, in the body, in the right eye, in the left eye, Thus Balaki exhausted all his idea of Brahman. Then Ajatasatru asks him thus:

Then verily the son of Balaka became silent. Ajatasatru said to him, «Thus far only (reaches thy knowledge), O son of Balaka! ‘Thus far only’, he replied. Ajatasatru said, ‘Speak not proudly without cause (saying), «Let me tell thee Brahman». O son of Balaka, He who is the maker of these spirits, whose work is all this, He verily is the being to be known’. Then truly the son of Balaki came up to him with fuel in his hand, saying, «Let me attend thee (as my Guru)».

Ajatasatru said to him, «This I consider contrary to nature that a Kshatriya should instruct a Brahmana. Come, I will tell thee all I know». Then having taken him by the hand, he set forth. They came to a man asleep. Then he pushed him with his staff, and he at once rose up. Ajatasatru said to the son of Balaka, ‘Where, O son of Balaka, lay this spirit asleep, where was all this done, whence came he thus back?’ Then the son of Balaka knew not what to reply. Ajatasatru said to him, «This is where, O son of Balaka, this spirit lay asleep, where all this was done, and whence he thus came back. The vessels of the heart named Hita proceeding from the heart, surround the great membrane (round the heart); thin as a hair divided into thousand parts and filled with the minute essence of various colours, of white, of black, of yellow, and of red. When’ the sleeping man sees no dreams so ever, he abides in these.

Doubt: Here arises the doubt: Does tins Upanishad teach the Purusha of the Sankhyas, who is the enjoyer and the Superintendent of the Prakriti, or does it mean the Blessed Vishnu, Lord of all? The phrase — «to whom this work belongs» — connects the being to be known with work; and such a being is mentioned there as the enjoying soul, the ruler of Prakriti. Further, both of them go to a sleeping person. That also shows that the teaching here given is about the human soul, and not about the Lord. Further on, also, the text treats of the enjoying soul, in the sentence: ‘As the master feeds with his people, nay, as the people feed on the master, thus does this conscious Self feed with the other Selfs’. Therefore, the passage relates to the individual soul. The word Prana or life applied to him is also appropriate, for Prana here means the individual soul, in so far as supporting life. The sense of the Upanishad passage is this: He who is the cause of different persons residing in the sun, etc., and who is instrumental towards the retributive experiences of the individual souls, and to whom there belongs Karman, good and evil, to which there is due his becoming such a cause, He indeed is to he known, His essential nature is to be recognised, in distinction from Prakriti. Thus the Sakhya’s Jiva is the object of knowledge taught in this Upanishad. And, therefore, the Brahman which Ajatasatru promised to teach is this Jiva in a state of emancipation and free from Prakriti; for, as a matter of fact, there is no other Ishvara except the emancipated soul. And thinking etc., also are appropriate to such a soul, and he is ruler of Prakriti who is the mother of the universe.

Siddhanta: This objection of the Sankhyas, the author answers by the following Sutra:

SUTRA I. 4. 16.

जगद्वाचित्वात्॥१.४.१६॥

jagadvācitvāt ..1.4.16..

... Jagat, the world. … Vachitvat, because of the denotation.

COMMENTARY

In this passage, the individual soul of the Sankhyas is not the topic discussed; but the Supreme Person, the sole object of the Vedanta teaching. The whole difficulty arose from the sentence «to whom this Karma belongs», and if the word Karma were taken in its ordinary sense, the above passage could not refer Brahman, for Brahman is not bound by Karma. But the word Karma there is accompanied by the word Jagat, in the above Upanishad, and therefore, we take this word Karma there to mean the universe consisting of the individual souls and matter, (spirit and matter). In fact, the force of the word is this: In the phrase, to whom this work belongs, the word Karma refers to the universe, because Brahman is the cause of the universe, and therefore, the word Karman must refer to the word world. The truth is this: The word Karma is derived from the root Kr. ‘to create, to make’; and it means here creation and not work and not the technical Karma. And when this meaning can be given to Karma, it is wrong to give it the meaning of good and evil actions. When Karma is taken to mean ‘creation’ also, then the word Etat «this» also receives its proper force. It removes then the doubt that the individual soul is the creator. And according to the Sankhyas the individual soul is not the creator, for creation belongs to Prakriti. Nor can you Sankhyas say, that Purusha may be called ‘creator’ by Adhyasa or superimposition and connection with Prakriti, for according to Sankhya the Purusha is Asanga, or free from all connections. Therefore, the above passage does not refer to the Jiva of the Sankhyas, but to the Supreme Lord, who alone is the creator of this universe. This also frees Ajatashatru from the censure of having told a lie, for he promises in the opening passage, «I will teach you Brahman», and when Balaki mentions sixteen Purushas one after the other, he tells him this is false and himself then goes on to teach the true Brahman. Thus Ajatasatru implies that the various Purushas of Balaki were not the true Purusha and he (Ajatashatru) was going to tell the truth. Therefore, it is clear he meant to teach some Person, other than the various persons spoken of by Balaki. If he also meant to teach a Jiva, then there would be no difference between his teaching and that of Balaki whom he implicates of teaching a false doctrine. His teaching is, therefore, something different. he says, «The various persons mentioned by Balaki are not Brahman, but that they are creations of Brahman, and that He is the maker of those persons». What he meant to say is that the Being of whom this, namely, the universe, is the Karma or creation, is the Supreme Lord and the Highest Cause.

Note: The passage which gave rise to the doubt was the phrase «Yasya va, etat karma sa vai veditavyah» «of whom verily this is the Karma, He ought to be known’.’ The word Karma generally means the good and evil deeds of a Jiva, and so the above passage was open to misconception. But the word Etat in the same passage is the real key to right interpretation. Of whom This is the work. To what does the word This refer? It, in fact, refers to the sixteen persons mentioned by Balaki. Therefore, the word work does not mean here the good and evil deeds of the Jiva, but the world or the universe.

The Purvapakshin raises another objection saying there are inferential marks in this Upanishad passage pointing to the Jiva and the circumstance that the mention is made of the chief vital air or Prana we must hold that this section treats of the Jiva and not of the Highest Self.

This objection the author disposes of in the next Sutra:

Познавательные статьи:



Коммуникативные барьеры и пути их преодоления

Рынок недвижимости. Сущность недвижимости

Решение задач с использованием генеалогического метода

История происхождения и развития детской игры