« PreviousContinue »
Then held Bālāki his peace. Ajātasatru said to him, • Thus far only, Bālāki?' Bālāki replied, “Thus far only.' Ajātasatru said to him, 'Make me not (again) 1 to talk vainly, (saying), “Let me teach thee Brahman(n.).” He who, Bālāki, is the maker of these spirits, of whom this is the work, he it is who must be known.' Then Bālāki came to him with fuel in hand, (saying), 'Let me approach thee.' Ajātasatru said to him, 'Contrary to nature do I deem it that a Kșatriya should instruct a Brāhmaṇa. Yet come, I will instruct you.' Taking him by the hand he set forth. They came to a man asleep. Then Ajātasatru hailed him, 'O great one, clothed in white, Soma, the King. He still lay (asleep 3). He then touched him with his staff. He then rose up. Ajātasatru said to him, “Where, Bālāki, has lain the spirit (asleep), where has this taken place, whence has this returned ?' Bālāki then did not know. Ajātasatru said to him, '(This is) where has lain the spirit (asleep), where this has taken place, whence this has returned. The veins named Hitā stretch from the heart to the pericardium ; slender as a hair divided into a thousand parts, they are filled with minute atoms of brown, white, black, yellow, and red. In them (the sleeper) dwells when he has no dreams. (19.)
Then breath in him becomes one.: Speech with all names enters it. Sight with all forms enters it. Hearing with all sounds enters it. Mind with all thoughts enters it. When he awakes, just as from a burning fire sparks fly to all the quarters, so from this self the breaths proceed
1 Samvādayişthāḥ cannot legitimately be made intransitive, as in Cowell's translation, and the sense with this reading must be as given. I prefer the reading of the scholiast's recension ; samavādayişthāḥ, 'thou hast caused me fruitless talk'; so Max Müller and Deussen. The error in the MSS. is easy in view of the preceding clauses.
2 Read byhan with Sankarānanda and Bșhadāranyaka, ii, 1, 15. Cf. p. 37, n. 2.
3 The scholiast's recension has silent.'
4 That recension ends its section 18 here, and combines the rest of 19 (18) with 20. The Anand. ed. differs, however, and follows in the main the divisions of the ordinary text.
5 « Various colours,' Cowell and Max Müller, needlessly. * Iti here enumerates ; above, p. 8, n. 6; below, p. 51, n. 6. 7 Or, “Then is he absorbed in that Prāņa' (Cowell, Deussen, Max Müller).
forth according to their stations. From the breaths arise the deities, from the deities the worlds. This breath, the intelligent self, enters into the compound self up to the hair, up to the nails.
Just as a razor is placed in a razor-case, or fire in a receptacle of fire, so this intelligent self enters into the corporeal self up to the hair, up to the nails. That self these selves depend on, as his dependants on a rich man.2 Just as a rich man feeds on his dependants, or his dependants feed on a rich man, so the intelligent self feeds on these selves, or so these selves feed on him. So long as Indra did not know this self, so long had the Asuras the mastery over him. When he knew this self, having slain and conquered the Asuras, he obtained superiority, sovereign control, and lordship over all gods and all beings. Even so one who knows this, smiting away all evils, obtains superiority, sovereign control, and lordship over all beings, one who knows this.' (20.)
Adhyāya VII. Om.6 I shall proclaim the right, I shall proclaim the true. May that avail me; may that avail the speaker; may it avail me; may it avail the speaker. In me be radiance ; in me greatness. Speech rests on my mind; my mind on speech. Be thou revealed to me, that 7 art hidden in Veda
1 Cf. Brhadāraṇyaka Upanişad, i, 4, 7. · Wood,' Cowell, Deussen ; 'fireplace,' Max Müller. Kșura may mean blade only, Hopkins, J.A.O.S., xvii, 61, 79.
? Possibly a sheth is already meant. Cf. Hopkins, India, Old and New, pp. 169 seq.
3. Sankarānanda, ignorant of the Vedic idiom (Delbrück, Synt. Forsch., v, 132), renders ' eats with,' followed by Cowell, Deussen, and Max Müller.
4 This clause is omitted in the scholiast's recension, and also in the Berlin MS., where, however, the previous ca shows the slip, and indicates the process by which that recension arose.
Vidyāranya, Sarvopanişadarthānubhūtiprakāśa, ix, 67, points out the pun on Ajātaśatru's name.
See Xitareya Aranyaka, i, 1, 1, note; ii, 7, note ; Baudhāyana Srauta Sūtra, ix, 19.
? The parallel versions show much divergence, but tsāriņār may be an irregular nom. (cf. v.l. in xi, 8), and it makes a good contrast to āvir. The words are given in the Sānti prefixed and appended to the Upanişad in the Anand. ed. as ūvir maryo 'bhūr vedasū matsāṇīr, with a commentary of which it is sufficient to say that ānīr is treated as a verbal form. The corruption (cf. v.l. in my ed.) is apparently too deep-seated for
and Saman. Right, hurt me not. I spend day and night in learning this. Agni, honour and oblation, honour and oblation; honour be there to the Rşis who made the Mantras, who are lords of the Mantras, to the gods. May Sarasvati be propitious, bearing favour, and kindly to us. May we not be severed from thy sight. Mind undeceived, living eye, sun best of lights. Consecration, harm me not. (1.)
Then follows the Samhitā Upanişad. 'Earth is the symbol of the former, the sky of the latter. Wind is the union, says Sauravīra Māņdūkeya. • Ether is the union, Māņdavya taught in this connection, for it is not considered independent, and so I have not agreed with his son.' Agastya says, “It is independent. So wind and ether are the same.? So far as regards the deities. Now as regards the self. Speech is the symbol of the former, mind the form of the latter. Breath is the union,' says Sauravīra Māņdūkeya. Then his son, Dirgha (the tall one), says, ' By mind he first proclaims, then speaks with speech. Therefore is mind the symbol of the former, speech of the latter. The union is mind, speech, and breath. This chariot, drawn by horses, with a triple yoke, compact of mind, speech, and breath, bears (man) to the world of heaven. He who knows thus this union is united with children, cattle, glory, holiness, the world of heaven. He lives all his days. So the Māņdūkeyas. (2.) 3
Then follows (the doctrine) of Śākalya. The earth is the symbol of the former, the heaven of the latter. The wind is the union; the rain is the junction, Parjanya the joiner. When a great cloud rains mightily and unceasing, (they say), * Heaven and earth have joined together.' So far as regards the deities. Now as regards the self. This person is all egg-shaped. There are two halves. In it this is the symbol of the former, this of the latter. Between them here is this ether, just as there is that ether between heaven and earth. In this ether breath is stretched, just as in that ether wind is stretched. As those are those three lights, so there are these three lights. As there is that sun in the heaven, so there is this eye in the head. As there is that lightning in the atmosphere, so there is this heart in the body. As there is this fire on earth, so there is this seed in the organ. Thus, as it were, having compared the body (with the macrocosm) in all points, he says, “This is the symbol of the former, this of the latter.' The union is mind, speech, and breath. This chariot drawn by horses, with a triple yoke, compact of mind, speech, and breath, bears (man) to the world of heaven. He who knows thus this union is united with children, cattle, glory, holiness, the world of heaven. He lives all his days. (3.)"
Below vyoma is equally nonsense, but the parallel passages (cited in my ed.) show the sense given in the trans., which differs entirely from that in the commentary in the Anand. or on Aitareya Aranyaka, ii, 7 (q.v.).
Asya, vague as in Aitareya, iii, 1, 1. Cf. Uvata on Rgveda Prātiśākhya, Max Müller's ed., p. vi, and again in viii, 1. To render it him' is possible, but rather strained, with a causative.
? Pituś ca putrasya ca has no sense here, and is a misplacement of a remark which in the fuller version of the Aitareya, iii, 1, 1, where see my note, has a place, but not here.
* Followed in the MSS. by an Anukramaņī of contents, not translated, as it consists merely of the first words in each case. Cf. vi, 2, which is, however, a real summary.
The earth is the symbol of the former, the heaven of the latter. Wind is the union, the quarters the junction, the sun the joiner,' says Viśvāmitra. So far as regards the gods. Now as regards the self. Speech is the symbol of the former, mind of the latter. Breath is the union, the ear the junction, the eye the joiner. He who knows thus this union is united with children, cattle, glory, holiness, the world of heaven. He lives all his days. (4.)
• Fire is the symbol of the former, the moon of the latter. Lighting is the union,' says Sūryadatta. So far as regards the deities. Now as regards the self. Speech is the symbol of the former, mind of the latter. Truth is the union. He who knows thus this union is united with children, cattle, glory, holiness, the world of heaven. He lives all his days. (5.)
* The earth is the symbol of the former, the heaven of the
1 Cf. Aitareya Aranyaka, iii, 1, 2, where there is nothing corresponding to 4-7 here, and the names of the authorities of these sections do not seem genuine, J.R.A.S., 1908, pp. 371, 372.
? Cf. Rādha in the Vamśa Brāhmana, Ind. Stud., iv, 373, 384.
latter. Time is the union,' says Rādheya. So far as regards the deities. Now as regards the self. Speech is the symbol of the former, mind of the latter. The self is the union. He who knows thus this union is united with children, cattle, glory, holiness, the world of heaven. He lives all his days. (6.)
Speech is the symbol of the former, mind of the latter. Knowledge is the union,' says Pauskarasādi. He who knows thus this union is united with children, cattle, glory, holiness, the world of heaven. He lives all his days. (7.)
Then follow the imprecations. One should know that breath is the beam. If one who calls this breath the beam should revile another, if he think himself strong, he says,
Thou hast grasped breath, the beam. Thou canst not be fain to grasp breath, the beam.'
Then he should say to him, Breath, the beam, will forsake thee.' Again, if he think himself weak, he should say, "Thou hast been fain to grasp breath, the beam. That thou hast not been able to grasp. Breath, the beam, will forsake thee.' But whatever, whether speaking or not, he says to him, it is certain that it shall be accomplished. He should not, however, say anything save what is favourable to a Brāhmaṇa. · Only in exceeding prosperity may he speak thus to a Brāhmaṇa. “Not even ^ in exceeding prosperity. Let there be honour to Brāhmaṇas,' says
Sauravira Māņļūkeya. (8.)
If another 5 revile him who calls breath the beam, if he think him strong, he says, “I have been fain to grasp
| Neither in Aitareya Aranyaka, iii, 1, 4, nor here, is the sequence of thought or construction perfectly satisfactory, nor can it be made so without violent emendation or interpretation. The easiest change is to read samadhām for samadhāḥ, “I have grasped,' which gives a closer parallel to vii, 9.
2 This āha (so emended for the ārtha of the MSS.) is strange, but is already in the Aitareya.
3 Apparently, whether cursing or not, his words, if he knows breath as the beam, come true.
4 For the error of the MSS., na ca for ca na, cf. Mbh., xii, 21, 7, corrected by Hopkins, J.A.O.S., xxiii, 119. The locative has probably a causal sense (nimittasaptamī), because of excessive prosperity.' Cf. vi, 1 ; vii, 19, and note on Aitareya Aranyaka, iii, 1, 6.
• Paraḥ must be read to make sense. Cf. Aitareya Aranyaka, iii, 1, 4.