Part 3 - Brāhmaṇas and the Early Upaniṣads

The passage of the Indian mind from the Brāhmanic to the Upaniṣad thought is probably the most remarkable event in the history of philosophic thought. We know that in the later Vedic hymns some monotheistic conceptions of great excellence were developed, but these differ in their nature from the absolutism of the Upaniṣads as much as the Ptolemaic and the Copernican systems in astronomy. The direct translation of Viśvakarman or Hiraṇyagarbha into the ātman and the Brahman of the Upaniṣads seems to me to be very improbable,though I am quite willing to admit that these conceptions were swallowed up by the ātman doctrine when it had developed to a proper extent. Throughout the earlier Upaniṣads no mention is to be found of Viśvakarman, Hiraṇyagarbha or Brahmaṇaspati and no reference of such a nature is to be found as can justify us in connecting the Upaniṣad ideas with those conceptions^[1]. The word puruṣa no doubt occurs frequently in the Upaniṣads, but the sense and the association that come along with it are widely different from that of the puruṣa of the Puruṣasūkta of the Ṛg-Veda.

When the Ṛg-Veda describes Viśvakarman it describes him as a creator from outside, a controller of mundane events, to whom they pray for worldly benefits. “What was the position, which and whence was the principle, from which the all-seeing Viśvakarman produced the earth, and disclosed the sky by his might ? The one god, who has on every side eyes, on every side a face, on every side arms, on every side feet, when producing the sky and earth, shapes them with his arms and with his wings____Do thou, Viśvakarman, grant to thy friends those thy abodes which are the highest, and the lowest, and the middle...may a generous son remain here to us^[2]”; again in R.V.X.82 we find “Viśvakarman is wise,energetic,

the creator, the disposer, and the highest object of intuition____He

who is our father, our creator, disposer, who knows all spheres and creatures, who alone assigns to the gods their names, to him the other creatures resort for instruction^[3].” Again about Hiraṇyagarbha we find in R.V. I. 121,

“Hiraṇyagarbha arose in the beginning; born, he was the one lord of things existing. He established the earth and this sky; to what god shall we offer our oblation ?... May he not injure us, he who is the generator of the earth, who ruling by fixed ordinances, produced the heavens, who produced the great and brilliant waters !—to what god, etc.? Prajāpati, no other than thou is lord over all these created things: may we obtain that, through desire of which we have invoked thee; may we become masters of riches^[4].”

Speaking of the puruṣa the Ṛg-Veda says

“Puruṣa has a thousand heads.. .a thousand eyes, and a thousand feet. On every side enveloping the earth he transcended [it] by a space of ten fingers..... He formed those aerial creatures, and the animals, both wild and tame^[5],” etc.

Even that famous hymn (R.V. x. 129) which begins with

“There was then neither being nor non-being, there was no air nor sky above”

ends with saying

“From whence this creation came into being, whether it was created or not—he who is in the highest sky, its ruler, probably knows or does not know.”

In the Upaniṣads however, the position is entirely changed, and the centre of interest there is not in a creator from outside but in the self: the natural development of the monotheistic position of the Vedas could have grown into some form of developed theism, but not into the doctrine that the self was the only reality and that everything else was far below it. There is no relation here of the worshipper and the worshipped and no prayers are offered to it, but the whole quest is of the highest truth,and the true self of man is discovered as the greatest reality. This change of philosophical position seems to me to be a matter of great interest. This change of the mind from the objective to the subjective does not carry with it in the Upaniṣads any elaborate philosophical discussions, or subtle analysis of mind. It comes there as a matter of direct perception, and the conviction with which the truth has been grasped cannot fail to impress the readers. That out of the apparently meaningless speculations of the Brāhmaṇas this doctrine could have developed, might indeed appear to be too improbable to be believed.

On the strength of the stories of Bālāki Gārgya and Ajātaśatru (Bṛh. II. 1), Śvetaketu and Pravāhaṇa Jaibali (Chā. V. 3 and Bṛh. VI. 2) and Āruṇi and Aśvapati Kaikeya (Chā. v. 11) Garbe thinks

“that it can be proven that the Brahman’s profoundest wisdom, the doctrine of All-one, which has exercised an unmistakable influence on the intellectual life even of our time, did not have its origin in the circle of Brahmans at all^[6]”

and that “it took its rise in the ranks of the warrior caste^[7].” This if true would of course lead the development of the Upaniṣads away from the influence of the Veda, Brāhmaṇas and the Araṇyakas. But do the facts prove this ? Let us briefly examine the evidences that Garbe himself has produced. In the story of Bālāki Gārgya and Ajātaśatru (Bṛh. II. i) referred to by him, Bālāki Gārgya is a boastful man who wants to teach the Kṣattriya Ajātaśatru the true Brahman, but fails and then wants it to be taught by him.

To this Ajātaśatru replies (following Garbe’s own translation)

“it is contrary to the natural order that a Brahman receive instruction from a warrior and expect the latter to declare the Brahman to him^[8].”

Does this not imply that in the natural order of things a Brahmin always taught the knowledge of Brahman to the Kṣattriyas, and that it was unusual to find a Brahmin asking a Kṣattriya about the true knowledge of Brahman? At the beginning of the conversation, Ajātaśatru had promised to pay Bālāki one thousand coins if he could tell him about Brahman, since all people used to run to Janaka to speak about Brahman^[9]. The second story of Svetaketu and Pravāhaṇa Jaibali seems to be fairly conclusive with regard to the fact that the transmigration doctrines, the way of the gods (devayāna) and the way of the fathers (pitryāna) had originated among the Kṣattriyas, but it is without any relevancy with regard to the origin of the superior knowledge of Brahman as the true self.

The third story of Aruni and Aśvapati Kaikeya (Chā. V. u) is hardly more convincing, for here five Brahmins wishing to know what the Brahman and the self were, went to Uddālaka Aruṇi; but as he did not know sufficiently about it he accompanied them to the Kṣattriya king Aśvapati Kaikeya who was studying the subject. But Aśvapati ends the conversation by giving them certain instructions about the fire doctrine (vaiśvānara agni) and the import of its sacrifices. He does not say anything about the true self as Brahman. We ought also to consider that there are only the few exceptional cases where Kṣattriya kings were instructing the Brahmins. But in all other cases the Brahmins were discussing and instructing the ātman knowledge. I am thus led to think that Garbe owing to his bitterness of feeling against the Brahmins as expressed in the earlier part of the essay had been too hasty in his judgment.

The opinion of Garbe seems to have been shared to some extent by Winternitz also, and the references given by him to the Upaniṣad passages are also the same as we just examined^[10]. The truth seems to me to be this, that the Kṣattriyas and even some women took interest in the religio-philosophical quest manifested in the Upaniṣads. The enquirers were so eager that either in receiving the instruction of Brahman or in imparting it to others, they had no considerations of sex and birth^[11]; and there seems to be no definite evidence for thinking that the Upaniṣad philosophy originated among the Kṣattriyas or that the germs of its growth could not be traced in the Brāhmaṇas and the Araṇyakas which were the productions of the Brahmins.

The change of the Brāhmaṇa into the Araṇyaka thought is signified by a transference of values from the actual sacrifices to their symbolic representations and meditations which were regarded as being productive of various earthly benefits. Thus we find in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka (I. I) that instead of a horse sacrifice the visible universe is to be conceived as a horse and meditated upon as such. The dawn is the head of the horse, the sun is the eye, wind is its life, fire is its mouth and the year is its soul, and so on. What is the horse that grazes in the field and to what good can its sacrifice lead? This moving universe is the horse which is most significant to the mind, and the meditation of it as such is the most suitable substitute of the sacrifice of the horse, the mere animal. Thought-activity as meditation, is here taking the place of an external worship in the form of sacrifices.

The material substances and the most elaborate and accurate sacrificial rituals lost their value and bare meditations took their place. Side by side with the ritualistic sacrifices of the generality of the Brahmins, was springing up a system where thinking and symbolic meditations were taking the place of gross matter and action involved in sacrifices. These symbols were not only chosen from the external world as the sun, the wind, etc., from the body of man, his various vital functions and the senses, but even arbitrary alphabets were taken up and it was believed that the meditation of these as the highest and the greatest was productive of great beneficial results. Sacrifice in itself was losing value in the eyes of these men and diverse mystical significances and imports were beginning to be considered as their real truth^[12].

The Uktha (verse) of Ṛg-Veda was identified in the Aitareya Āranyaka under several allegorical forms with the Prāṇa^[13], the Udgītha of the Sāmaveda was identified with Om, Prāṇa, sun and eye; in Chāndogya II. the Sāman was identified with Om, rain, water, seasons, Prāṇa, etc., in Chāndogya III. 16-17 man was identified with sacrifice; his hunger, thirst, sorrow, with initiation ; laughing, eating, etc., with the utterance of the Mantras; and asceticism, gift, sincerity, restraint from injury, truth, with sacrificial fees (daksinā). The gifted mind of these cultured Vedic Indians was anxious to come to some unity, but logical precision of thought had not developed, and as a result of that we find in the Araṇyakas the most grotesque and fanciful unifications of things which to our eyes have little or no connection. Any kind of instrumentality in producing an effect was often considered as pure identity.

Thus in Ait. Araṇ. II. 1.3 we find

“Then comes the origin of food.
The seed of Prajāpati are the gods.
The seed of the gods is rain.
The seed of rain is herbs.
The seed of herbs is food.
The seed of food is seed.
The seed of seed is creatures.
The seed of creatures is the heart.
The seed of the heart is the mind.
The seed of the mind is speech.
The seed of speech is action.
The act done is this man the abode of Brahman^[14].”

The word Brahman according to Sāyaṇa meant mantras (magical verses), the ceremonies, the hotr priest, the great. Hillebrandt points out that it is spoken of in R.V. as being new, “as not having hitherto existed,” and as “coming into being from the fathers.” It originates from the seat of the Rta, springs forth at the sound of the sacrifice, begins really to exist when the soma juice is pressed and the hymns are recited at the savana rite, endures with the help of the gods even in battle, and soma is its guardian (R.V. viii. 37. 1, viii. 69. 9, VI. 23. 5, I. 47. 2, VII. 22. 9, VI. 52. 3, etc.).

On the strength of these Hillebrandt justifies the conjecture of Haug that it signifies a mysterious power which can be called forth by various ceremonies, and his definition of it, as the magical force which is derived from the orderly cooperation of the hymns, the chants and the sacrificial gifts^[15]. I am disposed to think that this meaning is closely connected with the meaning as we find it in many passages in the Araṇyakas and the Upaniṣads. The meaning in many of these seems to be midway between “magical force” and “great,” transition between which is rather easy. Even when the sacrifices began to be replaced by meditations, the old belief in the power of the sacrifices still remained, and as a result of that we find that in many passages of the Upaniṣads people are thinking of meditating upon this great force “Brahman” as being identified with diverse symbols, natural objects, parts and functions of the body.

When the main interest of sacrifice was transferred from its actual performance in the external world to certain forms of meditation, we find that the understanding of particular allegories of sacrifice having a relation to particular kinds of bodily functions was regarded as Brahman, without a knowledge of which nothing could be obtained. The fact that these allegorical interpretations of the Pañcāgnividyā are so much referred to in the Upaniṣads as a secret doctrine, shows that some people came to think that the real efficacy of sacrifices depended upon such meditations. When the sages rose to the culminating conception, that he is really ignorant who thinks the gods to be different from him, they thought that as each man was nourished by many beasts, so the gods were nourished by each man, and as it is unpleasant for a man if any of his beasts are taken away, so it is unpleasant for the gods that men should know this great truth^[16].

In the Kena we find it indicated that all the powers of the gods such as that of Agni (fire) to burn, Vāyu (wind) to blow, depended upon Brahman, and that it is through Brahman that all the gods and all the senses of man could work. The whole process of Upaniṣad thought shows that the magic power of sacrifices as associated with Rta (unalterable law) was being abstracted from the sacrifices and conceived as the supreme power. There are many stories in the Upaniṣads of the search after the nature of this great power the Brahman, which was at first only imperfectly realized. They identified it with the dominating power of the natural objects of wonder, the sun, the moon, etc. with bodily and mental functions and with various symbolical representations, and deluded themselves for a time with the idea that these were satisfactory. But as these were gradually found inadequate, they came to the final solution, and the doctrine of the inner self of man as being the highest truth the Brahman originated.

The meaning of the word Upaniḍad.

The word Upaniṣad is derived from the root sad with the prefix ni (to sit), and Max Muller says that the word originally meant the act of sitting down near a teacher and of submissively listening to him. In his introduction to the Upaniṣads he says,

“The history and the genius of the Sanskrit language leave little doubt that Upaniṣad meant originally session, particularly a session consisting of pupils, assembled at a respectful distance round their teacher^[17].”

Deussen points out that the word means “secret” or “secret instruction,” and this is borne out by many of the passages of the Upaniṣads themselves. Max Muller also agrees that the word was used in this sense in the Upaniṣads^[18]. There we find that great injunctions of secrecy are to be observed for the communication of the doctrines, and it is said that it should only be given to a student or pupil who by his supreme moral restraint and noble desires proves himself deserving to hear them. Saṅkara however, the great Indian exponent of the Upaniṣads, derives the word from the root sad to destroy and supposes that it is so called because it destroys inborn ignorance and leads to salvation by revealing the right knowledge. But if we compare the many texts in which the word Upaniṣad occurs in the Upaniṣads themselves it seems that Deussen’s meaning is fully justified^[19].

The composition and growth of diverse Upaniṣads.

The oldest Upaniṣads are written in prose. Next to these we have some in verses very similar to those that are to be found in classical Sanskrit. As is easy to see, the older the Upaniṣad the more archaic is it in its language. The earliest Upaniṣads have an almost mysterious forcefulness in their expressions at least to Indian ears. They are simple, pithy and penetrate to the heart. We can read and read them over again without getting tired. The lines are always as fresh as ever. As such they have a charm apart from the value of the ideas they intend to convey.

The word Upaniṣad was used, as we have seen, in the sense of “secret doctrine or instruction” ; the Upaniṣad teachings were also intended to be conveyed in strictest secrecy to earnest enquirers of high morals and superior self-restraint for the purpose of achieving emancipation. It was thus that the Upaniṣad style of expression, when it once came into use, came to possess the greatest charm and attraction for earnest religious people; and as a result of that we find that even when other forms of prose and verse had been adapted for the Sanskrit language, the Upaniṣad form of composition had not stopped. Thus though the earliest Upaniṣads were compiled by 500 B.C., they continued to be written even so late as the spread of Mahommedan influence in India.

The earliest and most important are probably those that have been commented upon by Sankara namely

• Bṛhadāraṇyaka,
• Chāndogya,
• Aitareya,
• Taittirlya,
• Iśā,
• Kena,
• Katha,
• Praśna,
• Muṇḍaka
• and Māṇḍūkya^[20].

It is important to note in this connection that the separate Upaniṣads differ much from one another with regard to their content and methods of exposition. Thus while some of them are busy laying great stress upon the monistic doctrine of the self as the only reality, there are others which lay stress upon the practice of Yoga, asceticism, the cult of Śiva, of Viṣṇu and the philosophy or anatomy of the body, and may thus be respectively called the Yoga, Saiva, Viṣṇu and Sārīra Upaniṣads. These in all make up the number to one hundred and eight.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

The name Viśvakarma appears in Śvet. IV. 17. Hiranyagarbha appears in Śvet. ill. 4 and IV. 12, but only as the first created being. The phrase Sarvāhammānī Hiranyagarbha which Deussen refers to occurs only in the later Nrsimh. 9. The word Brali-manaspati does not occur at all in the Upaniṣads.

[2]:

Muir’s Sanskrit Texts , vol. IV. pp. 6, 7.

[3]:

Ibid. p. 7.

[4]:

Ibid. pp. 16, 17.

[5]:

Muir’s Sanskrit Texts , vol. V. pp. 368, 371.

[6]:

Garbe’s article, “Hindu Monism p. 68.    

[7]:

Ibid. p. 78.

[8]:

Garbe’s article, “Hindu Monism” p. 74.

 

[9]:

Brh. 11., compare also Brh. iv. 3, how Yājñavalkya speaks to Janaka about the brakmavidyā.

[10]:

Winternitz’s Geschichte der indischen Litteratur, I. pp. 197 ff.

[11]:

The story of Maitreyl and Yājñavalkya (Brh. 11. 4) and that of Satyakāma son of Jabālā and his teacher (Chā. iv. 4).    

[12]:

Chā. V. 11.

[13]:

Ait. Aran. II. 1-3.

[14]:

Keith’s Translation of Aitareya Āraṇyaka.

[15]:

Hillebrandt’s article on Brahman, E. R. E.

[16]:

Brh. I. 4. 10.

[17]:

Max Muller’s Translation of the Upaniṣads, S. B. E. vol. I. p. Ixxxi.

[18]:

.S. B. E. vol. I. p. lxxxiii.

[19]:

Deussen’s Philosophy of the Upaniṣads , pp. 10-15.

[20]:

Deussen supposes that Kausltaki is also one of the earliest. Max Muller and Schroeder think that Maitrāyaṇī also belongs to the earliest group, whereas Deussen counts it as a comparatively later production. Winternitz divides the Upaniṣads into four periods. In the first period he includes Brhadāranyaka, Chāndogya, Taittirīya, Aitareya, Kausltaki and Kena. In the second he includes Kāthaka, Iśā, Śvetāśvatara, Mundaka, Mahānārāyana, and in the third period he includes Praśna, Maitrāyanī and Māndūkya. The rest of the Upaṇisads he includes in the fourth period.