SVETASVATARA

UPANISHAD.

FIRST ADHYAYA.

1. The Brahma-students say: Is Brahman the cause1? Whence are we born? Whereby do we live, and whither do we go? O ye who know Brahman, (tell us) at whose command we abide, whether in pain or in pleasure?

1 This translation seems the one which Sankara himself prefers, for on p. 277, when recapitulating, he says, kim brahma kâranam âhosvit kâlâdi. In comparing former translations, whether by Weber, Roer, Gough, and others, it will be seen that my own differs considerably from every one of them, and differs equally from Sankara's interpretation. It would occupy too much space to criticise former translations, nor would it seem fair, considering how long ago they were made, and how imperfect were the materials. which were then accessible. All I wish my readers to understand is that, if I differ from my predecessors, I do so after having carefully examined their renderings. Unfortunately, Roer's edition of both the text and the commentary is often far from correct. Thus in the very first verse of the Svetâsvatara-upanishad, I think we ought to read sampratishthâh, instead of sampratish/hitâh. In the commentary the reading is right. Vyavasyâm is a misprint for vyavasthâm. In the second verse we must separate kâlah and svabhâvah. Yadrikkhâ, no very unusual word, meaning chance, was formerly taken for a name of the moon! Instead of na tvâtmabhâvât, both sense and metre require that we should read anâtmabhâvât, though the commentators take a different view. They say, because there is a self, and then go on to say that even that would not suffice. Such matters, however, belong to a critical commentary on the Upanishads rather than to a translation, and I can refer to them in cases of absolute necessity only, and where the readings of the two MSS., A. and B, seem to offer some help.

2. Should time, or nature1, or necessity, or chance, or the elements be considered as the cause, or he who is called the person (purusha, vigñânâtmâ)? It cannot be their union either, because that is not selfdependent, and the self also is powerless, because there is (independent of him) a cause of good and evil 3.

3. The sages, devoted to meditation and concentration, have seen the power belonging to God himself, hidden in its own qualities (guna). He, being one, superintends all those causes, time, self, and the rest".

4. We meditate on him who (like a wheel) has one felly with three tires, sixteen ends, fifty spokes, with twenty counter-spokes, and six sets of eight;

1 Svabhâva, their own nature or independent character. Union presupposes a uniter.

Âtmâ is explained by Sankara as the gîvah, the living self, and as that living self is in his present state determined by karman, work belonging to a former existence, it cannot be thought of as an independent cause.

• Devâtmasakti is a very important term, differently explained by the commentators, but meaning a power belonging to the Deva, the Îsvara, the Lord, not independent of him, as the Sânkhyas represent Prakriti or nature. Herein lies the important distinction between Vedanta and Sânkhya.

• Kâlâtmabhyâm yuktâni, kâlapurushasamyuktâni svabhâvâdîni. Âtman is here taken as synonymous with purusha in verse 2.

It is difficult to say whether this verse was written as a summing up of certain technicalities recognised in systems of philosophy existing at the time, or whether it is a mere play of fancy. I prefer the former view, and subjoin the explanation given by Sankara, though it is quite possible that on certain points he may be mistaken. The îsvara or deva is represented as a wheel with one felly, which would seem to be the phenomenal world. It is called trivrit, threefold, or rather having three tires, three bands or hoops to bind the felly, these tires being intended for the three gunas of the prakriti, the Sattva, Ragas, and Tamas. In the Brahmopanishad (Bibl. Ind.

whose one rope is manifold, who proceeds on three different roads, and whose illusion arises from two

causes.

p. 251) the trivrit sûtram is mentioned. Next follows shodasântam, ending in the sixteen. These sixteen are differently explained. They may be meant for the five elements and the eleven indriyas or organs (the five receptive and the five active senses, together with manas, the common sensory); or for the sixteen kalâs, mentioned in the Prasñopanishad, VI, 1, p. 283. Then follows a new interpretation. The one felly may be meant for the chaos, the undeveloped state of things, and the sixteen would then be the two products in a general form, the Virâg and the Sûtrâtman, while the remaining fourteen would be the individual products, the bhuvanas or worlds beginning with Bhûh.

Next follows satârdhâram, having fifty spokes. These fifty spokes are supposed to produce the motion of the mundane wheel, and are explained by Sankara as follows:

1. The five Viparyayas, misconceptions, different kinds of ignorance or doubt, viz. Tamas, Moha, Mahâmoha, Tâmisra, Andhatâmisra, or, according to Patañgali, ignorance, self-love, love, hatred, and fear (Yoga-sûtras I, 8; II, 2; Sânkhya-sûtras III, 37).

2. The twenty-eight Asaktis, disabilities, causes of misconception. (See Sânkhya-sûtras III, 38.)

3. The nine inversions of the Tushfis, satisfactions. (Sânkhyasûtras III, 39.)

4. The eight inversions of the Siddhis, perfections. (Sânkhyasûtras III, 40.)

These are afterwards explained singly. There are 8 kinds of Tamas, 8 kinds of Moha, 10 kinds of Mahâmoha, 18 kinds of Tâmisra, and 18 kinds of Andhatâmisra, making 62 in all. More information on the Asaktis, the Tushfis, and Siddhis may be found in the Sânkhya-sutras III, 37-45; Sânkhya-kârikâ 47 seq.; Yogasûtras II, 2 seq.

Then follow the 20 pratyaras, the counter-spokes, or wedges to strengthen the spokes, viz. the 10 senses and their 10 objects.

The six ashtakas or ogdoads are explained as the ogdoads of Prakriti, of substances (dhâtu), of powers (aisvarya), of states (bhâva), of gods (deva), of virtues (âtmaguna).

The one, though manifold cord, is love or desire, Kâma, whether of food, children, heaven or anything else.

The three paths are explained as righteousness, unrighteousness,

51. We meditate on the river whose water consists of the five streams, which is wild and winding with its five springs, whose waves are the five vital breaths, whose fountain head is the mind, the course of the five kinds of perceptions. It has five whirlpools, its rapids are the five pains; it has fifty kinds of suffering, and five branches.

6. In that vast Brahma-wheel, in which all things live and rest, the bird flutters about, so long as he thinks that the self (in him) is different from the mover (the god, the lord). When he has been blessed by him, then he gains immortality 2.

7. But what is praised (in the Upanishads) is the

and knowledge, and the one deception arising from two causes is ignorance of self, produced by good or bad works.

1 Here again, where the îsvara is likened to a stream, the minute coincidences are explained by Sankara in accordance with certain systems of philosophy. The five streams are the five receptive organs, the five springs are the five elements, the five waves are the five active organs. The head is the manas, the mind, or common sensory, from which the perceptions of the five senses spring. The five whirlpools are the objects of the five senses, the five rapids are the five pains of being in the womb, being born, growing old, growing ill, and dying. The next adjective pañkâsadbhedâm is not fully explained by Sankara. He only mentions the five divisions of the klesa (see Yoga-sûtras II, 2), but does not show how their number is raised to fifty. Dr. Roer proposes to read pankaklesa-bhedâm, but that would not agree with the metre. The five parvans or branches are not explained, and may refer to the fifty kinds of suffering (klesa). The whole river, like the wheel in the preceding verse, is meant for the Brahman as kâryakâranâtmaka, in the form of cause and effect, as the phenomenal, not the absolutely real world.

2 If he has been blessed by the Îsvara, i. e. when he has been accepted by the Lord, when he has discovered his own true self in the Lord. It must be remembered, however, that both the Îsvara, the Lord, and the purusha, the individual soul, are phenomenal only, and that the Brahma-wheel is meant for the prapañka, the manifest, but unreal world.

Highest Brahman, and in it there is the triad1. The Highest Brahman is the safe support, it is imperishable. The Brahma-students, when they have known what is within this (world), are devoted and merged in the Brahman, free from birth 3.

8. The Lord (isa) supports all this together, the perishable and the imperishable, the developed and the undeveloped. The (living) self, not being a lord, is bound, because he has to enjoy (the fruits of works); but when he has known the god (deva), he is freed from all fetters.

9. There are two, one knowing (isvara), the other not-knowing (giva), both unborn, one strong, the other weak; there is she, the unborn, through whom each man receives the recompense of his works; and there is the infinite Self (appearing) under all forms, but himself inactive. When a man finds out these three, that is Brahma".

10. That which is perishable is the Pradhâna' (the first), the immortal and imperishable is Hara 10.

1 The subject (bhoktri), the object (bhogya), and the mover (preritri), see verse 12.

2 B. has Vedavido, those who know the Vedas.

9 Tasmin pralîyate tv âtmâ samâdhih sa udâhritah.

Read badhyate for budhyate.

The form îsanîsau is explained as khândasa; likewise brahmam for brahma.

Cf. Svet. Up. IV, 5, bhuktabhogyâm.

The three are (1) the lord, the personal god, the creator and ruler; (2) the individual soul or souls; and (3) the power of creation, the devâtmasakti of verse 3. All three are contained in Brahman; see verses 7, 12. So 'pi mâyî paramesvaro mâyopâdhisannidhes tadvân iva.

• See verse 8.

The recognised name for Prakriti, or here Devâtmasakti, in the later Sânkhya philosophy.

10 Hara, one of the names of Siva or Rudra, is here explained as

1