{"collection":"Hinduism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/hin/sbe01/sbe01170.htm","path":"hin/sbe01/sbe01170.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe01/sbe01170.htm","text":"The Upanishads, Part 1 (SBE01), by Max M\u00fcller, [1879]\n1. 'He who moves about happy in dreams, he is the Self, this is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman.'\nThen Indra went away satisfied in his heart. But before he had returned to the Devas, he saw this difficulty. Although it is true that that self is not blind, even if the body is blind, nor lame, if the body is lame, though it is true that that self is not rendered faulty by the faults of it (the body),\n2. Nor struck when it (the body) is struck, nor lamed when it is lamed, yet it is as if they struck him (the self) in dreams, as if they chased him 1.\n[paragraph continues] He becomes even conscious, as it were, of pain, and sheds tears. Therefore I see no good in this.\n3. Taking fuel in his hands, he went again as a pupil to Prag\u00e2pati. Prag\u00e2pati said to him: 'Maghavat, as you went away satisfied in your heart, for what purpose did you come back?'\nHe said: 'Sir, although it is true that that self is not blind even if the body is blind, nor lame, if the body is lame, though it is true that that self is not rendered faulty by the faults of it (the body),\n4. Nor struck when it (the body) is struck, nor lamed when it is lamed, yet it is as if they struck him (the self) in dreams, as if they chased him. He becomes even conscious, as it were, of pain, and sheds tears. Therefore I see no good in this.'\n'So it is indeed, Maghavat,' replied Prag\u00e2pati; 'but I shall explain him (the true Self) further to you. Live with me another thirty-two years.'\nHe lived with him another thirty-two years. Then Prag\u00e2pati said:\n138:1 I have adopted the reading vikkh\u00e2yayanti, because it is the most difficult, and therefore explains most easily the various corruptions, or it may be emendations, that have crept into the text. Sa\u1e45kara explains vikkh\u00e2dayanti by vidr\u00e2vayanti, and this shows that he too must have read vikkh\u00e2yayanti, for he could not have explained vikkh\u00e2dayanti, which means they uncover or they deprive of their clothing, by vidr\u00e2vayanti, they drive away. It is true that vikkh\u00e2yayanti may be explained in two ways; it may be the causative of kh\u00e2, to cut, but this meaning is not very appropriate here, p. 139 and quite inadmissible in another passage where vikkh\u00e2yayanti occurs, whereas, if derived from vikh (\u1f40\u03af\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9) in a causative sense, Sa\u1e45kara could hardly have chosen a better explanation than vidr\u00e2vayanti, they make run away. The root vikh, vikkh\u00e2yayati is recognised in P\u00e2nini III, 1, 28, and in the Dh\u00e2tup\u00e2tha 28, 129, but it has hitherto been met with in this passage only, and in Brihad\u00e2ranyaka, Up. IV, 3, 20. Here also the author speaks of a man who imagines that people kill him or do him violence, or that an elephant chases him or that he falls into a pit. Here we have hast\u00eeva vikkh\u00e2yayati, and Sa\u1e45kara, at least as printed by Dr. Roer, explains this by vikkh\u00e2payati, vikkh\u00e2dayati, vidr\u00e2vayati; dh\u00e2vat\u00eety arthah. Much better is Dvivedaganga's commentary, as published by Dr. Weber, Satap. Br\u00e2hm. p. 1145, Kad\u00e2kid enam hast\u00ee vikkh\u00e2yayat\u00eeva vidr\u00e2vayat\u00eeva; vikha gatau, gup\u00fbdh\u00fbpavikhipanipanibhya \u00e2ya iti (P\u00e2n. III, 1, 28) sv\u00e2rtha \u00e2yapratyayah. In the Dictionary of Boehtlingk and Roth the derivation from kh\u00e2, to cut, is preferred; see Nachtr\u00e4ge, s. v. kh\u00e2.","title":"The Upanishads, Part 1 (SBE01): Kh\u00e2ndogya Upanishad...","type":"page"}