Section 1.2 (second khaṇḍa) (fourteen texts)

Upaniṣad text:

On the occasion when the Devas and Asurus,—both born of Prajāpati,—fought each other, the Devas took away the Udgītha,—(thinking) ‘with this shall we suppress these.’—(1)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

Devas and Asuras.—The term ‘deva’ is derived from the root ‘div’, to shine; hence the word ‘devas’ stands for such functionings of the sense-organs as are illuminated (regulated) by the scriptures;—opposed to these are the ‘Asuras’.—etymologically explained as ‘Asuṣu ramaṇāḥ’ ‘delighting in the spheres of all their own natural life’, and ‘inclinations’ as appertaining to all objects of sense; hence the term stands for those natural functions of the sense-organs which are of the nature of darkness (ignorance).—The particles ‘ha-vā’ are indicative of past events.—On the occasion,—on which account,—these two sets of Beings (Devas and Asuras) fought with each other; the root ‘Yama’ with the prefix ‘sam’ signifies fighting; hence ‘Samyetire’, means fought. That is, the natural sensual inclinations partaking of ignorance operated towards the suppression of the activities regulated by the Scriptures; and similarly as opposed to these, the Devas who are of the nature of enlightenment proceeding from discrimination due to the Scriptures, operated towards the suppression of the A suras, who are of the nature of inborn darkness or ignorance; and thus there has been something like ‘fighting’ in the shape of the suppressing of each other, in the bodies of all living beings,—a veritable ‘Devāsurasaṅgrāma’ [devāsurasaṃgrāma] (Battle between Devas and Asuras), since time, without beginning. Such is the sense of the text.—It is this war that is described here, in the shape of a story, for the purpose of bringing about the knowledge of the due difference between what should be done (Dharma) and what should not be done (Adharma),—and as tending to a knowledge of the method of purification of the senses.—Thus both these, Devas and Asuras, born of Prajāpati,—i.e. the children of Prajāpati;—‘Prajāpati’ here stands for the Personality, the Person capable of performing acts and acquiring knowledge, in accordance with the Śruti-text declaring that ‘The Person himself is Uktha, he is Mahān, he is Prajāpati; and all functionings of the sense-organs—both that are in accordance with the scriptures, as well as those natural ones that are contrary to those,—arise in the Person, and as such are called his ‘children.

On this occasion of fighting, for each other s rise and fall, the Devas took away the Udgītha; the term ‘Udgītha’ indirectly indicates the functions of the Udgātṛ Priest; and there again, inasmuch as it cannot be possible to take away these functions of that one Priest alone, what is meant is that they took away all such acts (sacrifices) as the Jyotiṣṭoma and the like.

The next sentence explains for what purpose they took away the said functions:—They thought that with this,—i.e. by means of this act (of the Sacrifice) we shall suppress these,—Asuras.—(1).

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

When they were going to take away the Udgītha— i.e. the Sacrificial Act—then—

Upaniṣad text:

They meditated upon the Breath in the nose as Udgītha; the Asuras pierced it with evil; hence with it one smells both what is good-smelling and what is foulsmelling; as it has been pierced with evil.—(2)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

They, the Devas, meditated upon,—performed meditation upon—the Breath in the nose,—i.e. the sensory organ of olfaction,—as Udgītha,—i.e. the performer of the Sacrificial Act, Udgātṛ Priest, regarding him as the Udgītha itself. What this means is that they meditated upon the Udgītha—i.e. the syllable ‘Om’—as the Breath in the Olfactory Organ. It is only when the text is taken to mean this that the context becomes preserved and the introduction ol foreign matter becomes avoided. As a matter of fact, the context relates to this syllable ‘Om’ itself as the object of meditation.

Objection:—“You have declared (the sense of the previous text to be) that the Devas took away the Act (Rite) related to the Udgītha; how is it, then, that now you say that they meditated upon the syllable ‘Om’ in the form of the Breath in the Nose?

Answer—There is no force in this objection; what is meant is that the syllable ‘Om’, which is a part of the Udgītha, should be meditated upon as the Breath in the Nose, and not independently by itself; and such being the sense, it is only right to say that ‘they took away the Act (Sacrifice)’ for the purpose of the said meditation.

When the Devas had thus selected their Udgātṛ Priest, the Asuras,—i.e. beings characterised by inherent darkness (ignorance),—pierced the luminous deity of the Breath in the Nose, with Evil; that is, they contaminated it with attachment to Evil arising out of themselves.—Thereupon the Deity of the ‘Breath in the Nose had his wisdom suppressed by the feeling of attachment in the form of the egoistic notion that the perception of sweet smell belongs to himself; and through this contact, he became contaminated with evil, This is what is meant by the assertion that ‘the Asuras pierced it with evil’.

Because the said ‘Breath in the Nose has been pierced with evil,—therefore, on becoming urged by that Evil, the olfactory organ,—i.e. the life-breath in the Nose,—comes to apprehend foul smell, among living beings. It is for this reason that people smell ‘what is good-smelling and also what is foul-smelling; because it has been pierced with Evil. No significance attaches to the term ‘both’,—just as in the case of the text ‘If both offering-materials become spoilt etc.’ [Where what is meant is that where any offeringmaterial is spoilt,—and not only two]. [So in the present context, though it is the apprehension of foul smell only that is due to the contact of Evil, yet the text speaks of ‘both’, though the apprehension of good smell cannot be due to the contact of Evil.] That such is the sense is clear also from a text found in a similar context (in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka). which says, ‘When one does perceive improper smell, it is due to that Evil’ [where it is only the perception of bad smell that is attributed to the presence of Evil ].—(2)

Upaniṣad text:

Then they meditated upon Speech as Udgītha; the Asuras pierced this with evil; hence one speaks both what is true and also what is untrue; because it is pierced with evil.—(3)

Then they meditated upon the Eye as Udgītha; the Asuras pierced it with evil; hence one sees both what is sightly and also what is unsightly; because it is pierced with evil.—(4)

Then, they meditated upon the Ear as Udgītha; the Asuras pierced it with evil; hence one hears both what is agreeable to hear and what Jis disagreeable to hear; because it is pierced with evil.—(5)

Then they meditated upon Mind as Udgītha; the Asuras pierced this with evil; hence one conceives both what should be conceived and what should not be conceived; because it is pierced with evil.—(6)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

This disquisition is introduced by the Vedic text for the purpose of showing that it is the ‘Breath in the Mouth’ that is pure and hence a fit object of meditation. With this view the presiding deities of the Eye and other organs (of perception) are discussed in due order and then discarded on the ground of their being ‘pierced with evil’ by the A uras. All the rest of it is as in the preceding text:—They meditated upon ‘Speech, the Eye, the Ear, the Mind’. Those organs that are not actually named here,—such as the organ of;Touch, the organ of Taste and so forth,—should also be understood to be included; as is clearly declared in another Vedic text—‘Thus have all these deities been pierced with evil.—(Bṛhadāraṇyaka).—(3-6)

Upaniṣad text:

Then they meditated upon that Breath which is in the Mouth, as Udgītha; when the Asuras approached it, they were smashed; just as (a clod of earth) approaching (hitting against) solid stone becomes smashed.—(7)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

Having discarded the Deities of the Olfactory and other organs on account of their being pierced by the Asuras, the Devas, thereafter, meditated upon that well-known ‘Breath which is in the Mouth’—i.e. which proceeds from the mouth,—as Udgītha.—As before, the Asuras approached this Breath also (for piercing it); but on approaching—i.e, getting at—it, they were smashed; that is, they perished through the mere intention (of piercing the said Breath).—In answer to the question,—How, without having done anything to the Breath, were they smashed?—the text supplies an illustration:—In the ordinary world, when a piece of stone which is solid,—(literally) that which cannot be dug into with spades and other implements,—is approached—hit—by a clod of Earth—[ this term being added here through the needs of the sense of the passage, and on the strength of another Vedic text],—when the clod of Earth is hit at the hard and solid piece of stone,-with the intention of breaking the stone,—the clod, without doing anything to the stone, becomes itself shattered; exactly so did the A suras perish when they approached the Breath in the Mouth (with the intention of piercing it).—(7)

Upaniṣad text:

Thus, just as (the clod of Earth) striking a solid piece of stone is rent asunder, so also is rent asunder one who wishes ill to the person knowing this (science); as also one who injures him; for he is a solid piece of stone.—(8)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

Thus, inasmuch as this Breath has not been injured by the Asuras, it is pure.

The Text describes the result that accrues to one who knows this essential character of the Breath—Just as striking etc. This is an illustration.—So also is rent asunder i.e. perishes who?—One who wishes ill,—what he does not deserve,—to the person who knows the Breath as described above; as also one who injures him,—who harms him; that is one who does such acts against the knower of the Science of Breath as abusing, assaulting and the like;—such a one also is rent asunder in the same way (as the clod of Earth).—The reason for this lies in the fact that he—the man knowing the Science of Breath,—is Life-Breath itself and as such, is a solid piece of stone,—i.e. not injurable.

Objection—“The Breath in the Nose also is of the nature of Air, just like the Breath in the Mouth; how then is it that the Breath in the Nose was pierced by evil, and not the Breath in the Mouth,—though both are Breath?”

Answer.—There is no force in this objection.—It is only right that, the Breath in the Nose, though of the nature of Air, was pierced on account of the defective character of its location and organ,—and yet the Breath in the Mouth was not so pierced, by reason of the strength of its location and deity; just as such implements as the Axe and the like accomplish good work only when handled by well-trained men, and not when handled by other men.—The Deity of the Nose was pierced because of the defective character of the Nose, its substratum,—not so the Breath in the Mouth.—(8)

Upaniṣad text:

By this, verily, one cognises not what is good-smelling, nor what is foul smelling; indeed it has destroyed evil; hence it is that whatever one eats or drinks, through this, one nourishes the other Breaths. In the end, not obtaining this, the rest go out; that is why one opens the mouth at the end.—(9)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

Inasmuch as the Breath in the Mouth was not pierced by the Asuras,—by this one cognises not what is good-smelling, nor what is foul-smelling; that is, people do not apprehend either of these two.—Thus, inasmuch as the effect of evil is not perceived, it follows that it has destroyed evil; i.e. it has removed, discarded, evil, and hence it is pure; specially because the olfactory and other Breaths support only themselves, being attached to what is good and agreeable; while the Breath in the Mouth is not so, it does not support itself alone, it supports all.—

How?—

Answer—Whatever one eats or drinks, through this—through the Breath in the Mouth—by what is eaten and drunk, one nourishes,—supports—the other Breaths, Olfactory and the rest; that is, it is with this help that they continue to exist; hence the Breath in the Mouth is the nourisher of all,—hence pure.—

Question— “How do you know that the continued existence of the Olfactory and other Breaths is due to the food and drink eaten and drunk through the Breath in the Mouth?”—

Answer—Not obtaining this—not securing the help of the Breath in the Mouth,—i.e., the feeding and drinking functions of the Breath in the Mouth,—in the end—at the time of death,—the rest,—i.e., the whole lot consisting of the Olfactory and other Breaths,—go out. When one is deprived of Breath, one cannot eat and drink; and hence it is well-known that there follows the departure of the whole lot consisting of the Olfactory and other Breaths.—As a matter of fact, it is seen that the Life-breath actually hankers after food and drink when on the point of departure; that is why one opens the mouth,—i.e. there is opening of the mouth; and this absence of food (as shown by the hankering after food) is indicative of the departed Breath.—(9)

Upaniṣad text:

Aṅgiras meditated upon this as Udgītha; thus they regard it as Aṅgirasa, as this is the essence (rasa) of the limbs (aṅgānām).—(10)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

On the strength of the text—‘They regard this Aṅgirasa as the Bṛhaspati and the Āyāsya Breath’,—some people have interpreted this passage as follows—Baka-Dālbhya—spoken of later on—meditated upon the Breath in the Mouth which is ‘Aṅgiras’ as the Udgītha; and similarly the same Baka-Dalbhya meditated upon the Breath which is Bṛhaspati, and which is Āyāsya (as described in texts 11 and 12 below).

This would be all right if the natural direct meaning of the sentence were not compatible; as a matter of fact, however, the natural meaning is quite compatible, even when the terms ‘Āṅgiras’ and ‘Bṛhaspati’ are taken as names of sages (represented as Breath); as we find in another Vedic text, viz:—(a) ‘Hence they called it Śatarcinaḥ’ (where the name of the sage is mentioned as standing for the Breath); (b) similarly in the Ṛgveda the Veda speaks of Gṛtsamada, Viśvāmitra, Vāmadeva, Atri and other revered sages to whom the middle-most hymns were revealed, as representing Breath. In the same manner the present texts (10, 11 and 12) speak of the sages Aṅgiras, Bṛhaspati, Āyāsya—who are really meditators upon Breath—as Breath itself, in order to indicate the fact of their being non-different from it; just as such nondifference is shown in such passages as—Breath is Father, ‘Breath is Mother’.

Hence the meaning of the text should be taken to be as follows:—The sage named Aṅgīras, being Breath itself, meditated upon himself,—the sage Aṅgīras, the Breath, as Udgītha; as—because—it,—Breath—is the essence of the limbs (aṅgas), hence this Breath is ‘Aṅgirasa’.—(10)

Upaniṣad text:

Bṛhaspati meditated upon this as Udgītha; thus they regard it as Bṛhaspati; as Speech is Bṛhatī, and this is the Lord thereof.—(11)

Āyāsya meditated upon this as Udgītha; thus they regard it as Āyāsya; as it proceeds from the Āsya (Mouth).—(12)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

Because Breath is the lord, ‘pati’, of ‘Bṛhatī’, i.e.. Speech,—therefore the sage is Bṛhaspati, Similarly because Breath proceeds from,—comes out of—the mouth, ‘āsya’; hence the sage Āyāsya is Breath itself.—Both these sages, being Breath itself—meditated etc., etc., etc.

In the same manner other Worshippers also should meditate upon themselves as Udgītha endowed with the properties connoted by the names ‘Āṅgīrasa’ (‘Bṛhaspati’ and ‘Āyāsya).’—(11) (12)

Upaniṣad text:

Baka-Dalbhya knew this; he acted as the Udgātṛ priest for the Naimiṣīyas; he sang out their desires for them.—(13)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

It was not only Aṅgīras (Bṛhaspati and Āyāsya) who thus meditated. The sage by name Baka, who was ‘Dālbhya’—i.e„ the son of Dalbhya—knew this; i.e., he understood the Breath as described above.—Equipped with this knowledge, he acted as the Udgātṛ Priest for the Naimiṣīyas, who were performing a Sattra.—By virtue of his knowledge of the Science of Breath, he sang out—to the Naimiṣīyas,—their desires; that is, it is said that he helped them in the fulfillment of their desires.—(13)

Upaniṣad text:

He becomes a singer out of desires who, knowing this thus, meditates upon the syllable, Udgītha;—This is in relation to the Self.—(14)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

As Baka, so any other Udgātṛ Priest becomes a ‘singer out of desires’, if he, knowing the Breath as described above, meditates upon it as the syllable ‘Udgītha’; to Kim accrues this visible (secular) reward; the invisible (spiritual) reward consisting in the identification of one’s Self with the Life-breath; the sense is that this is already known from such texts as ‘becoming a Divine Being, one reaches the Divine Beings’.

‘This is in relation to the Self’; i.e. what has been just described is the meditation upon the Udgītha in relation to one’s self (the Breath within one’s own body).—This summing up is meant to attract the attention to that meditation upon Udgītha relating to the Deities which is going to be described below.—(14)

End of the Section (Khaṇḍa) ii of Discourse (Adhyāya) II