{"collection":"Hinduism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/hin/sbe15/sbe15072.htm","path":"hin/sbe15/sbe15072.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15072.htm","text":"The Upanishads, Part 2 (SBE15), by Max M\u00fcller, [1879]\n1. Then Vidagdha S\u00e2kalya asked him 2: 'How many gods are there, O Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya?' He replied with this very Nivid 3: 'As many as are mentioned in the Nivid of the hymn of praise addressed to the Visvedevas, viz. three and three hundred, three and three thousand 4.'\n'Yes,' he said, and asked again: 'How many gods are there really, O Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya?'\n'Thirty-three,' he said.\n'Six,' he said.\n'Three,' he said.\n'Two,' he said.\n'One and a half (adhyardha),' he said.\n'One,' he said.\n'Yes,' he said, and asked: 'Who are these three and three hundred, three and three thousand?'\n2. Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya replied: 'They are only the various powers of them, in reality there are only thirty-three gods 1.'\nHe asked: 'Who are those thirty-three?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya replied: 'The eight Vasus, the eleven Rudras, the twelve \u00c2dityas. They make thirty-one, and Indra and Prag\u00e2pati make the thirty-three 2.'\n3. He asked: 'Who are the Vasus.'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya replied: 'Agni (fire), Prithiv\u00ee (earth), V\u00e2yu (air), Antariksha (sky), \u00c2ditya (sun), Dyu (heaven), Kandramas (moon), the Nakshatras (stars), these are the Vasus, for in them all that dwells (this world) 3 rests; and therefore they are called Vasus.'\n4. He asked: 'Who are the Rudras?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya replied: 'These ten vital breaths (pr\u00e2nas, the senses, i.e. the five g\u00f1\u00e2nendriyas, and the five karmendriyas), and \u00c2tman 1, as the eleventh. When they depart from this mortal body, they make us cry (rodayanti), and because they make us cry, they are called Rudras.'\n5. He asked: 'Who are the \u00c2dityas?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya replied: 'The twelve months of the year, and they are \u00c2dityas, because they move along (yanti), taking up everything 2 (\u00e2dad\u00e2n\u00e2h). Because they move along, taking up everything, therefore they are called \u00c2dityas.'\n6. He asked: 'And who is Indra, and who is Prag\u00e2pati?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya replied: 'Indra is thunder, Prag\u00e2pati is the sacrifice.'\nHe asked: 'And what is the thunder?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya replied: 'The thunderbolt.'\nHe asked: 'And what is the sacrifice?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya replied: 'The (sacrificial) animals.'\n7. He asked: 'Who are the six?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya replied: 'Agni (fire), Prithiv\u00ee (earth), V\u00e2yu (air), Antariksha (sky), \u00c2ditya (sun), Dyu (heaven), they are the six, for they are all 3 this, the six.'\n8. He asked: 'Who are the three gods?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya replied: 'These three worlds, for in them all these gods exist.'\nHe asked: 'Who are the two gods?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya replied: 'Food and breath.'\nHe asked: 'Who is the one god and a half?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya replied: 'He that blows.'\n9. Here they say: 'How is it that he who blows like one only, should be called one and a half (adhyardha)?' And the answer is: 'Because, when the wind was blowing, everything grew (adhyardhnot).'\nHe asked: 'Who is the one god?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya replied: 'Breath (pr\u00e2na), and he is Brahman (the S\u00fbtr\u00e2tman), and they call him That (tyad).'\n10. S\u00e2kalya said 1: 'Whosoever knows that person (or god) whose dwelling (body) is the earth, whose sight (world) is fire 2, whose mind is light,--the principle\nof every (living) self, he indeed is a teacher, O Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya.'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: 'I know that person, the principle of every self, of whom thou speakest. This corporeal (material, earthy) person, \"he is he.\" But tell me 1, S\u00e2kalya, who is his devat\u00e2 2 (deity)?'\nS\u00e2kalya replied: 'The Immortal 3.'\n11. S\u00e2kalya said: 'Whosoever knows that person whose dwelling is love (a body capable of sensual love), whose sight is the heart, whose mind is light.--the principle of every self, he indeed is a teacher, O Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya.'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya replied: 'I know that person, the principle of every self, of whom thou speakest. This love-made (loving) person, he is he.\" But tell me, S\u00e2kalya, who is his devat\u00e2?'\nS\u00e2kalya replied: 'The women 4.'\n12. S\u00e2kalya said: 'Whosoever knows that person whose dwelling are the colours, whose sight is the eye, whose mind is light,--the principle of every self, he indeed is a teacher, O Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya.'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya replied: 'I know that person, the principle of every self, of whom thou speakest. That person in the sun, \"he is he.\" But tell me, S\u00e2kalya, who is his devat\u00e2?'\nS\u00e2kalya replied: 'The True 5.'\n13. S\u00e2kalya said: 'Whosoever knows that person\nwhose dwelling is ether, whose sight is the ear, whose mind is light,--the principle of every self, he indeed is a teacher, O Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya.'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya replied: 'I know that person, the principle of every self, of whom thou speakest. The person who hears 1 and answers, \"he is he.\" But tell me, S\u00e2kalya, who is his devat\u00e2?'\nS\u00e2kalya replied: 'Space.'\n14. S\u00e2kalya said: 'Whosoever knows that person whose dwelling is darkness, whose sight is the heart, whose mind is light,--the principle of every self, he indeed is a teacher, O Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya.'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya replied: 'I know that person, the principle of every self, of whom thou speakest. The shadowy 2 person, \"he is he.\" But tell me, S\u00e2kalya, who is his devat\u00e2?'\nS\u00e2kalya replied: 'Death.'\n15. S\u00e2kalya said: 'Whosoever knows that person whose dwelling are (bright) colours, whose sight is the eye, whose mind is light,--the principle of every self, he indeed is a teacher, O Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya.'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya replied: 'I know that person, the principle of every self, of whom thou speakest. The person in the looking-glass, \"he is he.\" But tell me, S\u00e2kalya, who is his devat\u00e2?'\nS\u00e2kalya replied: 'Vital breath' (asu).\n16. S\u00e2kalya said: 'Whosoever knows that person whose dwelling is water, whose sight is the heart, whose mind is light,--the principle of every self, he indeed is a teacher, O Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya.'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya replied: 'I know that person, the principle of every self, of whom thou speakest. The person in the water, \"he is he.\" But tell me, S\u00e2kalya, who is his devat\u00e2?'\nS\u00e2kalya replied: 'Varuna.'\n17. S\u00e2kalya said: 'Whosoever knows that person whose dwelling is seed, whose sight is the heart, whose mind is light,--the principle of every self, he indeed is a teacher, O Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya.'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya replied: 'I know that person, the principle of every self, of whom thou speakest. The filial person, \"he is he.\" But tell me, S\u00e2kalya, who is his devat\u00e2?'\nS\u00e2kalya replied: 'Prag\u00e2pati.'\n18. Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: 'S\u00e2kalya, did those Br\u00e2hmanas (who themselves shrank from the contest) make thee the victim 1?'\nS\u00e2kalya said: 'Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya, because thou hast decried the Br\u00e2hmanas of the Kuru-Pa\u00f1k\u00e2las, what 2 Brahman dost thou know?'\n19. Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: 'I know the quarters with their deities and their abodes.'\nS\u00e2kalya said: 'If thou knowest the quarters with their deities and their abodes,\n20. 'Which is thy deity in the Eastern quarter?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: '\u00c2ditya (the sun).'\nS\u00e2kalya said: 'In what does that \u00c2ditya abide?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: 'In the eye.'\nS\u00e2kalya said: 'In what does the eye abide?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: 'In the colours, for with the eye he sees the colours.'\nS\u00e2kalya said: 'And in what then do the colours abide?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: 'In the heart 1, for we know colours by the heart, for colours abide in the heart 2.'\nS\u00e2kalya said: 'So it is indeed, O Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya.'\n21. S\u00e2kalya said: 'Which is thy deity in the Southern quarter?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: 'Yama.'\nS\u00e2kalya said: 'In what does that Yama abide?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: 'In the sacrifice.'\nS\u00e2kalya said: 'In what does the sacrifice abide?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: 'In the Dakshin\u00e2 (the gifts to be given to the priests).'\nS\u00e2kalya said: 'In what does the Dakshin\u00e2 abide?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: 'In Sraddh\u00e2 (faith), for if a man believes, then he gives Dakshin\u00e2, and Dakshin\u00e2 truly abides in faith.'\nS\u00e2kalya said: 'And in what then does faith abide?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: 'In the heart, for by the heart faith knows, and therefore faith abides in the heart.'\n22. S\u00e2kalya said: 'Which is thy deity in the Western quarter?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: 'Varuna.'\nS\u00e2kalya said: 'In what does that Varuna abide?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: 'In the water.'\nS\u00e2kalya said: 'In what does the water abide?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: 'In the seed.'\nS\u00e2kalya said: 'And in what does the seed abide?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: 'In the heart. And therefore also they say of a son who is like his father, that he seems as if slipt from his heart, or made from his heart; for the seed abides in the heart.'\n23. S\u00e2kalya said: 'Which is thy deity in the Northern quarter?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: 'Soma.'\nS\u00e2kalya said: 'In what does that Soma abide?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: 'In the D\u00eeksh\u00e2 1.'\nS\u00e2kalya said: 'In what does the D\u00eeksh\u00e2 abide?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: 'In the True; and therefore they say to one who has performed the D\u00eeksh\u00e2, Speak what is true, for in the True indeed the D\u00eeksh\u00e2 abides.'\nS\u00e2kalya said: 'And in what does the True abide?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: 'In the heart, for with the heart do we know what is true, and in the heart indeed the True abides.'\n24. S\u00e2kalya said: 'Which is thy deity in the zenith?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: 'Agni.'\nS\u00e2kalya said: 'In what does that Agni abide.'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: 'In speech.'\nS\u00e2kalya said: 'And in what does speech abide\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: 'In the heart.'\nS\u00e2kalya said: 'And in what does the heart abide?'\n2 5. Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: 'O Ahallika 1, when you think the heart could be anywhere else away from us, if it were away from us, the dogs might eat it, or the birds tear it.'\n26. S\u00e2kalya said: 'And in what dost thou (thy body) and the Self (thy heart) abide?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: 'In the Pr\u00e2na (breath).'\nS\u00e2kalya said: 'In what does the Pr\u00e2na abide?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: In the Ap\u00e2na (down-breathing) 2.'\nS\u00e2kalya said: 'In what does the Ap\u00e2na abide?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: 'In the Vy\u00e2na (back-breathing ) 3.'\nS\u00e2kalya said: 'In what does the Vy\u00e2na-abide?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: 'In the Ud\u00e2na (the out-breathing) 4.'\nS\u00e2kalya said: 'In what does the Ud\u00e2na abide?'\nY\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: 'In the Sam\u00e2na 5. That Self\n[paragraph continues] (\u00e2tman) is to be described by No, no 1! He is incomprehensible, for he cannot be (is not) comprehended; he is imperishable, for he cannot perish; he is unattached, for he does not attach himself; unfettered, he does not suffer, he does not fail.'\n'These are the eight abodes (the earth, &c.), the eight worlds (fire, &c.), the eight gods (the immortal food, &c.), the eight persons (the corporeal, &c.) He who after dividing and uniting these persons 2, went beyond (the Sam\u00e2na), that person, taught in the Upanishads, I now ask thee (to teach me). If thou shalt not explain him to me, thy head will fall.'\nS\u00e2kalya did not know him, and his head fell, nay, thieves took away his bones, mistaking them for something else.\n27. Then Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya said: 'Reverend Br\u00e2hmanas, whosoever among you desires to do so, may now question me. Or question me, all of you. Or whosoever among you desires it, I shall question him, or I shall question all of you.\nBut those Br\u00e2hmanas durst not (say anything).\n28. Then Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya questioned them with these Slokas:\n1. 'As a mighty tree in the forest, so in truth is man, his hairs are the leaves, his outer skin is the bark.\n2. 'From his skin flows forth blood, sap from the skin (of the tree); and thus from the wounded\nman 1 comes forth blood, as from a tree that is struck.\n3. 'The lumps of his flesh are (in the tree) the layers of wood, the fibre is strong like the tendons 2 . The bones are the (hard) wood within, the marrow is made like the marrow of the tree.\n4. 'But, while the tree, when felled, grows up again more young from the root, from what root, tell me, does a mortal grow up, after he has been felled by death?\n5. 'Do not say, \"from seed,\" for seed is produced from the living 3; but a tree, springing from a grain, clearly 4 rises again after death 5.\n6. 'If a tree is pulled up with the root, it will not grow again; from what root then, tell me, does a mortal grow up, after he has been felled by death?\n7. 'Once born, he is not born (again); for who should create him again 6?'\n'Brahman, who is knowledge and bliss, he is the principle, both to him who gives gifts 1, and also to him who stands firm, and knows.'\n139:1 M\u00e2dhyandina text, p. 1076.\n139:2 This disputation between Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya and Vidagdha S\u00e2kalya occurs in a simpler form in the Satapatha-br\u00e2hmana, XI, p. 873. He is here represented as the first who defies Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya, and whom Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya asks at once, whether the other Br\u00e2hmans had made him the ulmuk\u00e2vakshayana, the cat's paw, literally one who has to take a burning piece of wood out of the fire (ardha. dagdhak\u00e2shtham ulmukam; tasya vahirnirasanam avakshayanam vin\u00e2sah). The end, however, is different, for on asking the nature of the one god, the Pr\u00e2na, he is told by Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya that he has asked for what he ought not to ask, and that therefore he will die and thieves will carry away his bones.\n139:3 Nivid, old and short invocations of the gods; devat\u00e2sa\u1e45khy\u00e2v\u00e2kak\u00e2ni mantrap\u00e2dni k\u00e2nikid vaisvadeve sastre sasyante. Sa\u1e45kara, and Dvivedaga\u1e45ga.\n139:4 This would make 3306 devat\u00e2s.\n140:1 'The glories of these are three and thirty.' Gough, p. 172.\n140:2 Trayastrimsau, i.e. trayastrimsatah p\u00fbranau.\n140:3 The etymological explanation of Vasu is not quite clear, and p. 141 the commentator hardly explains our text. Perhaps vasu is meant for the world or the dwellers therein. The more usual explanation occurs in the Satap. Br\u00e2h. p. 1077, ete h\u00eedam sarvam v\u00e2sayante tadyad idam sarvam v\u00e2sayante tasm\u00e2d vasava iti; or on p. 874, where we read te yad idam sarvam &c.\n141:1 \u00c2tman is here explained as manas, the common sensory.\n141:2 The life of men, and the fruits of their work.\n141:3 They are the thirty-three gods.\n142:1 I prefer to attribute this to S\u00e2kalya, who is still the questioner, and not Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya; but I am not quite satisfied that I am right in this, or in the subsequent distribution of the parts, assigned to each speaker. If S\u00e2kalya is the questioner, then the sentence, veda v\u00e2 aham tam purusham sarvasy\u00e2tmanah par\u00e2yanam yam \u00e2ttha, must belong to Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya, because he refers to the words of another speaker. Lastly, the sentence vadaiva has to be taken as addressed to S\u00e2kalya. The commentator remarks that, he being the questioner, one expects prikkha instead of vada. But Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya may also be supposed to turn round on S\u00e2kalya and ask him a question in turn, more difficult than the question addressed by S\u00e2kalya to Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya, and in that case the last sentence must be taken as an answer, though an imperfect one, of S\u00e2kalya's. The commentator seems to think that after Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya told S\u00e2kalya to ask this question, S\u00e2kalya was frightened and asked it, and that then Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya answered in turn.\n142:2 The M\u00e2dhyandina text varies considerably. It has the first time, kashur lokah for agnir lokah. I keep to the same construction throughout, taking mano gyotih, not as a compound, but like agnir loko yasya, as a sentence, i.e. mano gyotir yasya.\n143:1 Ask me. Comm.\n143:2 That from which he is produced, that is his devat\u00e2. Comm.\n143:3 According to the commentator, the essence of food, which produces blood, from which the germ receives life and becomes an embryo and a living being.\n143:4 Because they excite the fire of love. Comm.\n143:5 The commentator explains satya, the true, by the eye, because the sun owes its origin to the eye.\n144:1 Read srautra instead of srotra; see Brih. \u00c2r. Up. II, 5, 6.\n144:2 Shadow, kh\u00e2y\u00e2, is explained here by ag\u00f1\u00e2na, ignorance, not by g\u00f1\u00e2na, knowledge.\n145:1 A\u1e45g\u00e2r\u00e2vakshayana is explained as a vessel in which coals are extinguished, and \u00c2nandagiri adds that Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya, in saying that S\u00e2kalya was made an a\u1e45g\u00e2r\u00e2vakshayana by his fellow Br\u00e2hmans, meant that he was given up by them as a victim, in fact that he was being burnt or consumed by Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya. I should prefer to take a\u1e45g\u00e2r\u00e2vakshayana in the sense of ulmuk\u00e2vakshayana, an instrument with which one takes burning coals from the fire to extinguish them, a pair of tongs. Read sandamsa instead of sandesa. Kshi with ava means to remove, to take away. We should call an a\u1e45g\u00e2r\u00e2vakshayana a cat's paw. The Br\u00e2hmanas used S\u00e2kalya as a cat's paw.\n145:2 It seems better to take kim as the interrogative pronoun than as an interrogative particle.\n146:1 Heart stands here for buddhi and manas together. Comm.\n146:2 In the text, published by Dr. Roer in the Bibliotheca Indica, a sentence is left out, viz. hridaya ity uv\u00e2ka, hridayena hi r\u00fbp\u00e2ni g\u00e2n\u00e2ti, hridaye hy eva r\u00fbp\u00e2ni pratishthit\u00e2ni bhavant\u00eety.\n147:1 D\u00eeksh\u00e2 is the initiatory rite for the Soma sacrifice. Having sacrificed with Soma which has to be bought, the sacrificer becomes endowed with wisdom, and wanders to the North, which is the quarter of Soma.\n148:1 A term of reproach, it may be a ghost or preta, because ahani l\u00eeyate, it disappears by day.\n148:2 Because the pr\u00e2na would run away, if it were not held back by the ap\u00e2na.\n148:3 Because the ap\u00e2na would run down, and the pr\u00e2na up, if they were not held back by the vy\u00e2na.\n148:4 Because all three, the pr\u00e2na, ap\u00e2na, and vy\u00e2na, would run away in all directions, if they were not fastened to the ud\u00e2na.\n148:5 The Sam\u00e2na can hardly be meant here for one of the five pr\u00e2nas, generally mentioned before the ud\u00e2na, but, as explained by Dvivedaga\u1e45ga, stands for the S\u00fbtr\u00e2tman. This S\u00fbtr\u00e2tman abides in the Antary\u00e2min, and this in the Brahman (K\u00fbtastha), which is p. 149 therefore described next. Could Sam\u00e2na be here the same as in IV, 3, 7?\n149:1 See before, II, 3, 6; also IV, 2, 4; IV, 4, 22; IV, 5, 115.\n149:2 Dividing them according to the different abodes, worlds, and persons, and uniting them at last in the heart.\n150:1 In the M\u00e2dhyandina-s\u00e2kh\u00e2, p. 1080, tasm\u00e2t tad\u00e2tunn\u00e2t, instead of tasm\u00e2t tad\u00e2trinn\u00e2t.\n150:2 Sa\u1e45kara seems to have read sn\u00e2vavat, instead of sn\u00e2va, tat sthiram, as we read in both S\u00e2kh\u00e2s.\n150:3 Here the M\u00e2dhyandinas (p. 1080) add, g\u00e2ta eva na g\u00e2yate, ko nv enam ganayet punah, which the K\u00e2nvas place later.\n150:4 Instead of a\u00f1gas\u00e2, the M\u00e2dhyandinas have anyatah.\n150:5 The M\u00e2dhyandinas have dh\u00e2n\u00e2ruha u vai, which is better than iva vai, the iva being, according to Sa\u1e45kara's own confession, useless. The thread of the argument does not seem to have been clearly perceived by the commentators. What the poet wants to say is, that a man, struck down by death, does not come to life again from seed, because human seed comes from the living only, while trees, springing from grain, are seen to come to life after the tree (which yielded the grain or the seed) is dead. Pretya-sambhava like pretya-bh\u00e2va, means life after death, and pretyasambhava, as an adjective, means coming to life after death.\n150:6 This line too is taken in a different sense by the commentator. According to him, it would mean: 'If you say, He has been born p. 151 (and there is an end of all questioning), I say, No; he is born again, and the question is, How?' This is much too artificial. The order of the verses in the M\u00e2dhyandina-s\u00e2kh\u00e2 is better on the whole, leading up more naturally to the question, 'From what root then does a mortal grow up, after he has been felled by death?' When the Br\u00e2hmans cannot answer, Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya answers, or the Sruti declares, that the root from whence a mortal springs again, after death, is Brahman.\n151:1 Sa\u1e45kara explains r\u00e2tir d\u00e2tuh as r\u00e2ter d\u00e2tuh, a reading adopted by the M\u00e2dhyandinas. He then arrives at the statement that Brahman is the principle or the last source, also the root of a new life, both for those who practise works and for those who, having relinquished works, stand firm in knowledge. Regnaud (II, p. 138) translates: 'C'est Brahma (qui est) l'intelligence, le bonheur, la richesse, le but supr\u00eame de celui qui offre (des sacrifices), et de celui qui r\u00e9side (en lui), de celui qui conna\u00eet.'","title":"The Upanishads, Part 2 (SBE15): Brihad\u00e2ranyaka Upan...","type":"page"}