Introduction to the Chandogya Upanishad

This Upaniṣad forms part of a Brāhmaṇa called Chāndogya Brāhmaṇa or the Ritual of the chanters (ga) of the Hymns (chandas). Rājendra Lāla Mitra was the first discoverer of this Brāhmaṇa and he describes it thus

“Manuscripts of the work are easily available but as yet we have seen no commentary attached to the Brāhmaṇa portion of any of them. According to general acceptation, the work embraces ten chapters, of which the first two are reckoned to be the Brāhmaṇa, and the rest is known under the name of Chāndogya Upaniṣad. In their arrangement and style the two portions differ greatly, and judged by them they appear to be productions of very different ages, though both are evidently relics of pretty remote antiquity. Of the two chapters of the Chāndogya Brāhmaṇa, the first includes eight sūktas (hymns) on the ceremony of marriage, and the rites necessary to be observed at the birth of a child. The first Sūkta is intended to be recited when offering an oblation to Agni on the occasion of a marriage, and its object is to pray for prosperity in behalf of the married couple. The second prays for long life, kind relatives, and numerous progeny. The third is the marriage pledge by which the contracting parties bind themselves to each other. Its spirit may be guessed from a single verse. In talking of the unanimity with which they will dwell, the bridegroom addresses his bride. ‘Whatever is thy heart the same shall be mine, and this my heart shall be thine.’ The fourth and the fifth invoke Agni, Vāyu, Candramas and Sūrya to bless the couple and ensure healthful progeny. The sixth is a mantra for offering an oblation on the birth of a child and the seventh and the. eighth are prayers for its beings healthy, wealthy and powerful not weak, poor and a mute, and to ensure a profusion of wealth and milch cows.

“The first Sūkta of the second chapter is addressed to the Earth, Agni and Indra, with a prayer for wealth, health and prosperity; the second, third, fourth, fifth -and sixth are mantras for offering oblations to cattle, the manes, Sūrya and divers dii minores. The seventh is a curse upon worms, insects, flies and other nuisances, and the last, the concluding mantra of the marriage ceremony, in which a general blessing is invoked for all concerned.”

The Upaniṣad consists of the remaining part of the Brāhmaṇa, and, has thus eight Adhyāyas out of the whole ten. The first Adhyāya of the Upaniṣad or the third Adhyāya of the Brāhmaṇa contains thirteen Khaṇḍas or‘sections. The Khaṇḍa first opens with the description of the Supreme God, called Udgītha, the Most High. It then describes the coming out from Him of the great hierarchy of the Seven, namely, Ramā, Vāyu, Vāk, Rudra, Soma, Varuṇa and Pṛthivī, presiding respectively over.the seven planes, of the Universe. Though for purposes of salvation, the knowledge of the Most High and love for Him are the essential requisites, yet unless one knows this cosmic gradation of the Devatās, his idea of God would always be limited and not complete. Vāyu plays a most important part in the system of Madhva. He is the great Saviour of humanity, nay of gods even. The high conception of this Great Person of the Hindu Trinity (consisting of Udgītha the Most High, Ramā and Vāyu) will be understood by a close study of this section. The great difference between this Hindu conception of the Trinity and that of the modern Christianity is this that while the latter makes all the Three Persons equal, Madhva insists on the fact that Rama and Vāyu, though supremely high, are still inferior to the Most High.

Another point which Madhva brings out more clearly is that names like Brahmā, &c., are applied not only to spirits of the good, but to those of evils also, not only to the Devas but to the Asuras also. The creation of the universe from the primary dyad, Vāk and Prāṇa, is similar to that mentioned in the Praśna Upaniṣad where Rayi occupies the same position as Vāk or Sarasvatī or Ṛk does in this Upaniṣad. The word Om is the most secret and holy name of the Lord. Its every letter has a mystic meaning. One must worship the Lord in this Om and through Vāyu or Chief Prāṇa. Thus Vāyu occupies in Madhva’s theology a somewhat analogous position as that of Christ among the Christians. It is this which has made some persons think that Madhva is indebted to Christianity for this doctrine. But to an impartial reader of the Upaniṣads, it would be clear, that the idea of Prāṇa being the first born of God, the great Saviour, and Meditator, did not originate with Madhva, but is fairly deducible from the texts of the Upaniṣad. One may as well blame the Upaniṣad of having borrowed from Milton the story of the war in heaven, between angels of obedience and of pride, as blame Madhva of having borrowed his doctrines of grace, and salvation through Vāyu, from Christianity. The war between Devas and Asuras has always been a favourite topic of description with the Hindu theologians. The second Khaṇḍa of the Upaniṣad mentions this war, and shows how the Devas were constantly routed from all their strongholds, until they took refuge in the Lord and his Beloved Son, Vāyu. Another point which Madhva brings out clearly is the kabalistic explanation of various names. The ancient theory of words is that all words are primarily the names of God and mean God. It is only in their secondary sense that they have come to be the names of Devas and other beings and objects. This theory (which remained merely a theory in the hands of ancient grammarians like Patanjali, etc.) has been worked fully by Madhva. He shows throughout the book, how various names denote the attributes of the Lord, when analysed into their constituent parts into letters and syllables. The most striking feature to an occultist and mystic, however, is the description of Svarūpa Deba, as given by Madhva. This highest body of the Jīva is made of Prāṇa. This is the body referred to in the Yoga Sūtras, where the author says that in the state of Samadhi one remains in his Svarūpa Deha. This is the body of Christ of the Christian mystic, the body that never perishes and which is so poetically described in Mantra 9 of Khaṇḍa II of this Adhyāya. One who has fully understood this Prāṇa will never fall into the mistake made by the modern Christians about the nature of Christ or by some neo-theosophists who think that Christ is an individual soul which animated the body of Master Maitreya, a disciple of the Lord Buddha. However high this Lord Maitreya may be, he cannot be identified with Christ or Prāṇa, the Word that was in the beginning and from which the whole world was created. The Prāṇa alone is the Christ of the gnostics and the mystics. It is no limited personality which constitutes Prāṇa, but a mysterious entity, the Beloved Son of God, the Saviour of men and angels.

The sacred syllable Om is also called Udgītha, its proper pronunciation is the keynote to the acquisition of all occult powers.

The Third Khaṇḍa describes the cosmological aspect of this great Prāṇa and his five forms.

The fourth Khaṇḍa is a parable and shows how Durga, the destroyer of ignorance, forced the Devas, by constantly driving them away from every kind of objective worship, into the interior realm of subjective worship, and thus attaining mukti. Durga, in this aspect, as the frightener of Devas, may not look very amiable; but it is her constant hammering on the recalcitrant soul that makes the Jiva turn from outside to inside.

The Khaṇḍa fifth shows the meditation on Om, either as a single syllable or as consisting of many syllables and their different results.

Khaṇḍas 6 and 7 deal with the same meditation on the Lord, both in the sun and in the eye, cosmological and psychological. Madhva, of course, is believer in a Personal God, and, as such, the description of the Golden Person in the sun, offers no difficulties to him. Max Muller makes a slight mistake in translating the word Puṇḍarika Kapyāsa by “blue-lotus”; it does not mean blue lotus, but ‘red lotus.’ The word Kapyāsa is not such a bad comparison after all, as has been made out by Śaṅkara’s followers. The meaning given to it by Madhva is more reasonable and less objectionable than the translation “the seat of the monkey.” This Khaṇḍa also shows that Vāyu, the Great Prāṇa, is the real Udgāta, the Great Singer. It is his song that has built the worlds and universes, gross and subtle.

The 8th and 9th Khaṇḍas again deal with the hierarchy. The words which are generally translated as tone, breath, food, water, heaven, earth, are explained by Madhva as names of the heads of these hierarchies. Madhva is more consistent here than the older commentators. Even they have all taken the term Ākāśa which stands at the end of the above list, not to mean ‘ether,’ but something totally different; namely, the Supreme Brahman. If the last term of the order means Supreme Brahman, why should the other terms, which are also names of physical objects, sui generis with them, not mean Devas of different grades?

The 10th and 11th Khaṇḍas describe the story of a famine stricken vagrant, but Seer, called Usaṣṭi and how he discomfited the proud priests of the king.

The. 12th Khaṇḍa describes the so-called canine Udgitha or the Udgītha of the dogs. The dogs are ancient names of guardians of humanity and messengers that carry the dead. The description of the two dogs of Yama as given in the Ṛg Veda shows this. But the word śvan, which means dog, has been taken here in its etymological sense of breath or the breathing one. I have the authority of Sayana for this, where in explaining this word in a Vedic Mantra, he interprets it as the name of Vāyu. If Christ can be called the sheep of God or the lamb of God, there is nothing incongruous in calling Vāyu, the hound of God.

The 13th Chapter deals with the so-called 13 stobha syllables, “sounds used in the musical recitation of the Sāman hymns, probably to fill out the intervals in the music, for which there were no words in the hymns. These syllables are marked in the manuscripts of the Sāma Veda, but their exact character and purpose are not quite clear.” The 13 sounds are identified with the 13 names of the Lord and Madhva finds scope for his ingenuity in explaining how the very letters of these, syllables denote the various names and attributes of the Lord.

The second Adhyāya of the Chāndogya takes a step forward. It gives an additional attribute of God:—God is not only Impartial or same to all, but He is good to all. He is not only Sāma, but He is Sādhu. Nature is not only Sāma or uniform, (for no intelligent person can deny the uniformity of Nature), but it is benevolent also, a fact which many deny. But the thinking portion of mankind are coming to the conclusion that Nature is good as well.

Next the Upaniṣad teaches a method of meditating on the Lord as Good, and Harmonious. The Lord has five aspects, called Pradyumna, Vāsudeva, Nārāyaṇa, Saṅkarṣaṇa, and Aniruddha. These five forms pervade the whole universe animate and inanimate. The following table will show the five-fold pervasion of the Lord:—

	Pradyumna	Vāsudeva	Nārāyaṇa	Aniruddha	Saṅkarṣaṇa
1	Earth	Fire	Sky	Sun	Heaven
2	Heaven...	Sun	Sky	Fire	Earth
3	Wind...	Clouds	Raining	Thunder	Ceasing to rain
4	Clouds	Rains	River east	River west	Ocean
5	Spring	Summer	Rains	Autumn	Winter
6	Goats	Sheep	Cows	Horses	Man
7	Smell...	Speech	Eye	Ear	Mind

Then follow the seven-fold meditation:—

Pradyumna	Vāsudeva	Vārāha	Nārāyaṇa	Aniruddha.	Nṛsiṃha	Saṅkarṣaṇa
Hiṅ	Para	Ā	Ut	Prati	Upa	Ni
Pre-sunrise	Sun risen	Sangave [Saṅgava?]	Mid-day	Post-meridian	Afternoon	Sunset
Animals	Men	Birds	Devas	Germs	Wild beasts	Pitṛs

Then follow other kinds of meditations based on this idea of seven-foldness. In mantra 2 of khaṇḍa 21 occurs the famous formnula “Let him meditate as sarvam asmi.” The words sarvam asmi plainly mean “I am everything.” But Madhva shows that ‘sarvam’ and ‘asmi’ are both names of the Lord. One must meditate that the Lord is sarvam on Full, and asmi or the “I AM.” The full discussion on this point will be found at pages 142 to 154. In these pages Madhva advances his reasons for holding that the Chāndogya Upaniṣad nowhere teaches that the Jīva can become God, and to any impartial leader, not aheady steeped in the Māyāvāda of Śaṅkara, they would be found to be very cogent reasons indeed.

The third adhyāya teaches that the Lord is not only Sāma and Sādhu, but He is the Friend of man. As the Logos of the sun, He reveals all truths to mankind. The four Vedas and the fifth, the Secret Doctrine come out from His five aspects, already mentioned before: The mystery of colour is also revealed here, in the various colours of the Lord. The orthodox followers of Śaṅkara take this as teaching the worship of the physical sun. Madhva combats this wrong notion. He shows that the worship of no inanimate object can give mukti. No Christian missionary could have written more strongly against idolatry, than Madhva does at pages 187 to 190. This adhyāya is called madhu vidyā or the Lord as sweet. The Lord is not only just (Sāma), or good (Sādhu), but most sweet or Madhu or beautiful. Justice, goodness and beauty combine in Him. this beauty of the Lord appears in various aspects, to the various kinds of devas and men. Next is taught the Gayatri meditation on the Lord. He is not only in the sun, but in the soul of man. He is not only the ruler of the cosmos, by dwelling in the sun; but of the microcosmos also, by being in the heart of man. As he is five-fold in the sun, so is he live-fold in the heart of man also. The five Nāḍis, called by various names, are the seats of the five forms of the Lord. The citadel of the heart has five gate-keepers Vyāna, Apāna, Samāna, Udāna, and Prāṇa.

In khaṇḍa fourteenth, we have another famous formula sarvam khalu idam brahma, which does not mean that “all this is verily Brahman,” but “this Brahman is verily the Full.” This khaṇḍa also teaches the meditation on Brahman in the heart.

The rest of the Adhyāya is an allegory of the life of man as a sacrifice. In khaṇḍa seventeenth we find a reference to one Kṛṣṇa, Devakīputra, mentioned as the disciple of the Ṛṣi Ghora of the clan of Aṅgira. One is strongly tempted to say that this is a reference to the great teacher of the Bhāgavadgītā [Bhagavadgītā?], the Avatāra Śrī Kṛṣṇa. But Madhva is against this view. According to him, the reference to Kṛṣṇa Devakiputra [Devakīputra?] is not a reference to the Avatāra, but to a Ṛṣi of that name. His reasons are given at page 242.

The fourth Adhyāya commences with the story of a king called Jana-śruti and of a holy sage, suffering from itches, called Raikva of the ear. The king was very probably of a Śūdra caste, and ignorant of the rules of discipleship. He expected to be taught the Brahmavidyā by offering gifts to the sage. The Ṛṣi repudiates all these gifts, and when the king serves him like an ordinary disciple, he is taught the mystery of the great dissolution or Pralaya. Everything enters into the Vāyu, when the great dissolution sets in. In verse eighth of the third khaṇḍa, we find again a reference to ṃe perfect number ten. The teaching of the Brahmavidyā to a Śūdra shows that when this Upaniṣad was composed, ṃere was not that illiberality of view, which disfigures the modern Hinduism. This is strengthened by the story of Satyakāma Jābāla also, to be found in this Adhyāya. He was a foundling brought up by a maid servant called Jabālā. Naturally he does not know whether he is a twice-born or a Śūdra. His foster-mother Jabālā was very likely a Śudrā woman. This boy was anxious to learn the Brahmavidyā. He goes to the Ṛṣi Hāridrumata of the clan of Gautama, and says “I wish to dwell with you, as a Brahmacārin Sir, So I have come to you, Sir.” The Ṛṣi said to him: “Of what family art thou, my friend?” He replied: “I do not know, Sir, of what faṃily I am. I asked my mother, and she answered: ‘In my youth, when I was free to go about as a maid-servant (and was not in seclusion), I found thee. Therefore, I do not know of what family thou art. I am Jabālā by name, thou art Satyakāma.’ I am therefore Satyakāma Jabālā, Sir.” He then said to him “A person undeserving of Brahma-knowledge is never capable of such speech. Child! Bring the sacred fuel. I shall initiate thee, since thou did not swerve from truth.” This shows that the only test of the fitness of a person to be initiated was, not his birth, but his fearless speaking of the truth, under circumstances where there are temptations to the contrary.

Satyakāma is initiated and is taught by the devas themselves. In his turn Satyakāma became a great teacher and others came to learn from him. One of them was Upakosala Kāmalāyana. The method adopted by Satyakāma to develop the intuition of his pupil was the same which he had followed under his teacher Hāridrumata Gautama, namely, silence. A curious side-light is also thrown on the social customs of Ancient India by this story. Under the Śaṅkara system no one is entitled to Brahmavidyā, unless he embraces the Sannyāsa Āśrama or monasticism; nor is any one authorised to teach it, unless he is a monk. But Satyakāma is a married man and leads a house holder’s life. While Janaśruti is also a householder.

In khaṇḍa eleventh, occurs another famous formula so ham asmi, sa eva aham asmi. The Advaitins translate it as “I am he,” “he verily I am.” But Madhva explains it in its true meaning. Aham and asmi are well-known names of God. The modern Hindus have forgotten these names, and great credit is due to Madhva for discovering them. “I am that I am” is the name of God still among the Parsees and the Jews—ahmi yad ahmi—Jehovah.

In khaṇḍa fifteenth is taught the enigmatical doctrine that the person seen in the eye is the Lord. This teaching is a stumbling block to Virocana, as we shall find later on in Adhyāya eighth. Upakosala, however, does not fall into the same error into which, the Asura king Virocana, fell, when Prajāpati taught him this doctrine of the eye.

It is in this adhyāya also that we find the famous description of the two paths:—the path of the Gods and the path of the bathers.

In khaṇḍa 17 Madhva explains the word Aśva as applied to God. The word in this connection does not mean “horse” but “wisdom.” Turagānana or Hayagrīva or Aśvānana would not mean horse-faced or horse-necked, as my friend Dr. Schrader in the Theosophist would have me translate, but it would mean Intelligence-faced, or he who lias wisdom for his face. It is from the mouth of this wisdom-faced Lord, that all the Vedas, &c., have come out. Madhva would certainly be scandalised, if he heard that his favourite deity was called horse-faced.

Note.—The words Aśva and Turaga mean etymologically “fast moving” and are primarily the names of mind or intelligence, and it is secondarily only that they are applied to horse. In fact, the ordinary Dictionary also gives the same meaning to these words. hi any other place, than Madhva’s commentary, one would have translated Turagānana as horse-faced, but with Madhva it is impossible to do so. As I had undertaken to translate Madhva, I could not follow the ordinary course. Hari is no doubt called Hayagrīva horse-necked, and is represented in ordinary mythology, as having the head of a horse, but the question is, would Madhva, who like his nineteenth century re-incarnation Swāmi Dayā Nanda Saraswati, was interpreting the Vedas and Upaniṣads in a strictly monotheistic sense, have tolerated the mythology of the Śāktas who give the following story of how Hari happened to get the head of a horse. The Devas, defeated by the Asuras, went to ask the aid of Hari. They found him resting on his bow and fast asleep, and did not know how to awaken him. When some one suggested that if the bow-string was cut, the spring of the bow would awaken the God. Hari, who was seated in a sitting posture, with his head reclined on his bow, did not interfere with the plan of the Devas. The string was cut, but the spring of the bow was so violent, that the head of Hari was separated from his trunk, and was thrown away to a groat distance. The Devas were aghast at this mishap, and with the help of the Śakti, they placed the head of a horse on the trunk of Hari, and thus Hari came to have a horse face. This story is one pre-eminently of the school of Śakti worshippers, who thus glorify Śakti, at the expense of Hari. Śrī Madhva as a devout Vaiṣṇava would hardly have endorsed this view of the Śāktas. It was therefore thought best not to bring in this controversy. As an example how Madhva takes these ordinary names, in an extraordinary sense, I may refer to the word Hanumāna. Hanumāna, the monkey hero of the Rāmāyaṇa story is a well-known character in Hindu mythology. There is not a single Hindu who is not acquainted with his name. Literally the word Hanu means “high cheek bone,” “the chin.” Hanumān thus means he whose chin is very prominent. But Madhva has given an extraordinary meaning to this word even. He takes the word Hanu to mean wisdom, and Hanumān to mean ‘wise,’ ‘he who possesses wisdom.’ Would it have been proper to translate Hanumāan as thick-chinned? Similarly the word Bhīma has been taken in a different sense by Madhva. For all these reasons it was not thought proper to translate

The fifth Adhyāya of the Upaniṣad enters into the discussion of Prāṇa, and shows that Vāyu is die best of all the Devas or senses. It starts with the allegory of the quarrel among the senses or rather among the Devas of the senses, and shows how the supremacy belongs to Prāṇa (die Christ principle in man). This knowledge of Prāṇa is so miraculous, that if this is known fully, then a man can make leaves and branches to sprout out of a dry stick.

In the third khaṇḍa of this Adhyāya we find the legend of Śvetaketu going to Pravāhana’s court and his coming away from that place discomfited. The king asked him five questions

1. Knowest ihou that path on which the creatures go from this world;
2. Knowest thou by what path they return;
3. Knowest thou the cause of the divergence of the two paths;
4. Knowest thou how that world never becomes full;
5. Knowest thou how in the fifth libation the water gets the name of man.

Śvetaketu could not answer any one of these questions, and going back to his father, blamed him for not teaching him the secret of man’s life after death, and the method of reincarnation. Now Gautama himself did not know this secret, so he goes to the king and asks him to teach this science. The king says “O Gautama this science has never been known to any Brāhmaṇa before thee,” nd the king then teaches him the Pancāgni Vidyā—the five forms of the Lord presiding over the reincarnation cycle of man. This story incidentally shows that the Brahma Vidyā at first belonged to the Kaṣṭriya race, and not to the Brāhmaṇas. The Brāhmaṇas learnt it from the Kṣatriyas, and were not revealers of it in ancient India. It may also be mentioned that Gautama’s knowledge of God was not of a very limited nature. The teaching which lie gives to his son in the sixth Adhyāya shows that he had a very high conception of the Deity. But that conception was not the highest as is shown by the fact that with all his knowledge, as displayed in the sixth Adhyāya, he had to go to Pravāhana to learn the mystery of the live fires. From this it may also be inferred that the Tattvamasi of the sixth Adhyāya is not the highest revelation of the Vedanta. The interpretation of Madhva, therefore, gets more strength from this consideration also, Gautama taught his son Śvetaketu the famous secret of the Self and the Jīvātmā, and showed him that the soul of man was different from God, and that the highest duty of man was to worship God while recognising this difference. But the method of the soul’s reincarnation, and the various worlds to which it sojourns after death, are not known to Gautama. The fifth Adhyāya, therefore, chronologically comes after the sixth, though it is placed before it, in the text. In this Adhyāya also we find a story, which again illustrates that this Brahma Vidyā was not known to the Brāhmaṇas at first, but to the Kṣatriyas. Five Brāhmaṇa scholars held a discussion as regards who is the Self, who is Brahman. They went to Uddālaka to have their doubts removed. Uddālaka himself did not know the truth. And so tiny all go to king Aśvapati, for being taught. This legend also proves the greatheartedness of the Brāhmaṇa’s of ancient, India, who did not think it, beneath their dignity to learn even from a Kṣatriya. The king Aśvapati teaches them the mystery of the Lord Vaiśvānara. And he teaches them further the five aspects of Prāṇa, namely the Prāṇa, the Apāna, the Vyāna, the Samāna, and the Udāna.

The whole of the fifth adhyāya may be summarised as a chapter teaching about the God in man and the Christ in man. As the previous Adhyāyas taught the God in the world and Christ in the world, so the present adhyāya teaches the God in man and the Christ in man. The eight Adhyāya’s of this Upaniṣad may be broadly divided into two parts, the first four teach generally the God and the Christ in the cosmos. The remaining four Adhhāyas teach the same as in the microcosmos or man.

The sixth Adhyāya is the famous chapter in which occurs the great formula Tattvamasi. It is a discourse between Śvetaketu and his father, as already mentioned before. This teaching given by the father, to his son Śvetaketu precedes in time the teaching given to the father himself by Pravāhana. Śvetaketu on his return from his Teacher (Guru), is full of conceit at the learning he has acquired, and his father removes this pride, by teaching him that the human soul is separate from God and infinitely inferior to Him, and therefore no man, truly learned, can ever have any pride and conceit. He also teaches him the triad of colours red, white and black; Śrī, Vāyu and Śiva. Śrī Madhva, of course, does not take the phrase Tattvamasi, but atattvamasi. The formula is not “thou art that,” but “thou art not that.” Gramatically there is nothing incongruous in this. Sa Ātmā Tattvamasi may be split up either into “Saḥ, ātmā, Tat, tvam, asi”; or “saḥ, ātmā, atat, tvam, asi”. Both are valid. Madhva takes the second reading, and his reasons would be found fully stated at pages 437 to 452.

The seventh adhyāya is a discourse between Nārada and Sanatkumāra. This chapter deals with the hierarchy of the Devas, and in it occurs the well-known passage in which Nārada enumerates all the sciences known to him. When asked by Sanatkumāra what has he read Nārada replies:-

I know, Sir, the Ṛgveda, the Yajurveda, the Sāmaveda, and the Atharvaveda, the fourth, the Itihisa-purāṇa, which is a fifth book among the Vedas; the science of ancestors the science of numbers, the science of Devatās, the science of treasure finding, the undivided original Veda and its twenty four branches, the superhuman Deva science, the science of Brahman, the science of ghosts, the science of politics, the science of stars, the science of serpents and Deva-officials (Gandharvas) all this I know.”

Sanatkumāra then teaches him the inter-relation of all these sciences, and how those correlation of sciences can be understood properly only then, when one has understood the gradation of the various Devas who rule the universe.

The hierachy of Devas begins with Puṣkara the lowest and ends with the chief Vāyu the highest. The words Nāma, Vāk, Manas, Saṅkalpa, Citta, Dhyāna [Dhyānam], Vijñāna, Bala [Balam], Anna [Annam], Apaḥ, Tejas, Ākāśa, Smara, Āsā and Prāṇa are explained by Madhva as the names of the hierarchies. Whether these names are to he taken in their literal sense, or as standing for the names of certain Devas, it is clear that the Upaniṣads do distinctly teach, in unequivocal terms, the existence of these hierarchies. Thus in the Taittiriya Upaniṣad we find a description of the various grades of Devas and the various degrees of Ananda which they enjoy.

Then Madhva enters into a discussion as to the rationale of symbol worship. The great danger in symbol worship is that the idol itself is taken to be the God; and instead of worshipping the God, in the idol, the man ends by worshipping the idol as God. The apologists of idol worship say that they take the idol as help to meditation. But Madhva says:—“When one thing is meditated upon as something else, such meditation cannot be productive of salvation. There is not only want of the attainment of salvation, but there is a positive danger in such meditation. Just as there is danger in paying Royal Honors to a mere servant of the king; the person who thinks the servant of the king to be the king, and by such thinking pays all Royal Honors to him, incurs the displeasure of the king, and is destroyed by him, because the servant is under the control of the king. Therefore he who meditates upon Nāma and the rest, as if they were Brahman, is thrown by Brahman along with these Devas, namely Nāma and the rest, into hell, called blind darkness. Therefore let no one meditate upon these as Brahman.” Further on he says let no one meditate or worship any insentient object, or in an unworthy way or in an untruthful way. For by such worship there is great disaster to the worshipper.

The apologists of idol worship say that inanimate objects and herbs, &c., have some power of doing good to man; for as medicines they are of great utility. Madhva meets this objection by saying that even the medicinal effects of these objects are not dependent upon the objects themselves, but upon the spirit in those objects. The strict uncompromising monotheism of Madhva requires that all effects are produced primarily by the Lord Himself, and secondarily by his agents—the Angels, Men, Animals, and Plants. He sums it up thus:—

“The insentient objects get all their essential attributes, active powers. anti various modifications, from the sentient beings, the sentient beings get their sentiency from the Devas, the Devas get their power from the Supreme Prāṇa (the Christ), while the chief Prāṇa gets his power from the Supreme Viṣṇu always. This is the law and nothing can happen, but as directed by them. There is no example of an insentient object, showing any activity, without the direct agency of a sentient being. Since we always see all activity emanating from sentient beings, in every case, therefore, the Unseen things must be judged by the analogy of the Seen. As when we find some grains scattered near an anthill, we infer that the ants must have thrown them there, and they did not come i here of themselves though, we do not see the ants. Thus we infer from known examples, that the insentient is always under the control or direction of the sentient.”

The eighth Adhyāya sums up the whole teaching of the Upaniṣad. It shows that the Lord within the heart of man is the same Lord who is in the heart of the universe. It gives the story of Indra and Virocana how both these went to Prajāpati to learn Brahma Vidyā. Prajāpati taught them in parables, which tested the intuition of these two. Indra came out successful, Virocana, who was not yet ripe to receive this teaching, misunderstood it. He thought that Prajāpati was teaching the Māyā Vāda, namely that Jīva is the highest entity and that human soul was the God. This Māyā Vāda doctrine was taught by Virocana to the Asuras, who believe consequently that human soul, is identical with God and that there is no other God than man himself. This is a mistake made not only by Virocana, but by the modern Vedāntins also; they have fallen into the same error as Virocana and think that man is identical with God.

But the whole teaching of this Upaniṣad shows that man is different from God, the difference is not conventional, due to time, space, or causality, but inherent in the very nature of things. Even in Mukti, the man is different from God, and there can be no greater proof of this than this last chapter of the Upaniṣad. In this Adhyāya, we find the description given of the state Mukti and contrary to all Advaita expectations, it describes Mukti as a state of happiness in which man retains his separate consciousness. Even Max Muller had to admit the curious nature of this; inexplicable fact. He, tries to explain it in this way:—

“These are pleasures which seem hardly compatible with the state of perfect peace which the Self is supposed to have attained. The passage may be interpolated, or put in on purpose to show that the self enjoys such pleasures as an inward spectator only, without identifying himself with either pleasure or pain. He sees them, as he says afterwards, with his divine eye.”

The question remains do the Upaniṣads teach Advaita, as taught by Śaṅkara. The oldest commentary on the Upaniṣads that we have got is the Brahma Sūtras, of Bādarāyaṇa. And if we can definitely settle the meaning of Bādarāyaṇa as found in the Sūtras, we can have at least one firm ground for maintaining the view that in the opinion of Bādarāyaṇa the Upaniṣads do not teach the doctrine of illusion and identity of soul with God. On this point a critical scholar like Dr, Thibaut maybe relied upon better than perhaps sectarians like Madhva.

Says the learned Doctor:—

“In enquiring whether the Upāniṣads maintain the Māyā doctrine or not, we must proceed with the same caution as regards other parts of the system, i.e., we must refrain from using unhesitatingly, and without careful consideration of the merits of each individual case, the teaching direct or inferred of any one passage, to the end of determining the drift of the teaching of other passages. We may admit that some passages (notably of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka,) contain at any rate the germ of the later developed Māyā doctrine, and thus render it quite intelligible that a system like Sankara’s should evolve itself, among others, out of the Upaniṣads, but that affords no valid reason for interpreting Māyā into other texts which give a very satisfactory sense without that doctrine, or are even clearly repugnant to it. This remark applies in the very first place to all the accounts of the creation of the physical universe. There, if anywhere, the illusional character of the world should have been hinted at, at least, had that theory been held by the authors of those accounts; but not a word to that effect is met with anywhere. The most important of these accounts—the one given in the sixth chapter of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad—forms no exception. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the “sending forth” of the elements from the primitive Sat, which is there described at length, was by the writer of that passage meant to represent a vivarta rather than a pariṇāma, that the process of the origination of the physical universe has to be conceived as anything else but a real manifestation of real powers, hidden in the primeval Self. The introductory words addressed to Śvetaketu by Uddālaka, which are generally appealed to as intimating the unreal character of the evolution about to be described, do not, if viewed impartially, intimate any such thing. For what is capable of being proved, and manifestly mean to be proved by the illustrative instances of the lump of clay and the nugget of gold, through which there are known all things made of clay and gold? Merely that this whole world has Brahman for its causal substance, just as clay is the causal matter of earthen pot, and gold of every golden ornament, but not that the process through which any causal substance becomes an effect is an unreal one. We, including Uddālaka, may surely say that all earthen pots are in reality nothing but earth, the earthen pot being merely a special modification (Vikāra) of clay which has a name of its own; without thereby committing ourselves to the doctrine that the change of form which a lump of clay undergoes when being fashioned into a pot, is not real but a mere baseless illusion.”

[Note (from print edition): The italics in the above are ours.]

The learned Doctor then gives an. exhaustive analysis of the Brahma Sūtras according to the views of Śaṅkara as well as Ramanuja and then puts the following question:—

“Which of the two modes of interpretation represents the true meaning, of the Sūtras.”

And he gives an unequivocal reply to this, namely, that the interpretation of Rāmānuja is more in accordance with what the author of the Sūtras meant. Thus Bādarāyaṇa does not give any evidence in the Sūtras that he held the doctrine of Māyā, the principle of illusion, by the association with which the highest Brahman is said to create the universe. The author of the Sūtras not only does not believe in Māyā, but believes that the individual soul is different from Brahman and is not identical with it, either in the state of release or bondage. Bādarāyaṇa in the last book of His Sūtras, describes the state of the individual soul who has attained release, and his idea of Mukti is the same as we find in the last chapter of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad. On this point the learned doctor refutes the view of Śaṅkara, who holds that the last book of the Sūtra does not describe the state of the Mukta soul, but only of the soul who has acquired inferior knowledge.

The whole passage is worth quoting:—

“If, now, I am shortly to sum up the results of the preceding enquiry as to the teaching of the Sūtras, I must give it as my opinion that they do not set forth the distinction of a higher and a lower knowledge of Brahman; that they do not acknowledge the distinction of Brahman and Īśvara in Śaṅkara’s sense; that they do not hold the doctrine of the unreality of the world; and that they do not proclaim the absolute identity of the individual and highest Self.”

Thus the Sūtras of Bādarāyaṇa, which may be taken to be the oldest commentary on the Upaniṣads, do not teach this doctrine of Advaita. Is it then likely that the Upaniṣads teach that doctrine, when the greatest interpreter of these does not find that doctrine in them? “The Sūtras as well as the latter commentaries claim, in the first place, to be nothing more than systematisation of the Upaniṣads.” It is, therefore, probable that the Upaniṣads do not teach the Advaita of Śaṅkara. The explanation of the Chāndogya, therefore, as given by Madhva, from the theistic point of view, deserves a calm hearing. One must approach the study of the Upaniṣads without any preconceived bias, in favour of any particular theory.

No doubt, Śrī Madhva, now and then, gives very forced interpreta-ns of certain Upaniṣad passages. But what one has to consider is whether Śrī Madhva has given a consistent explanation of the Upaniṣad as a whole, and not whether his explanation of certain words and passages are forced and unscientific. Before closing this introduction, I may mention a point on which perhaps Madhva is unique, namely, his claim that he is an incarnation of Vāyu. The Vāyu, called also Prāṇa, is the highest being nextto God. He is called “the beloved son of God,” the “servant of God,” “the mediator between God and man,” “the saviour.” The functions assigned by Śrī Madhva to Vāyu correspond very closely to the Christ principle of the Christian theology. I have, therefore, not hesitated in translating Vāyu and Prāṇa by Christ. Some may think that Madhva’s idea of Vāyu is not the same as the Christian idea of Christ. No one can expect exact similarities in such cases, but the approach is still remarkable. But more remarkable than this, is the claim of Madhva that he is an incarnation of Vāyu. Other authors have been more modest, and left it to their disciples to deify them, but Madhva, like Jesus, boldly lays claim to be the incarnation of Vāyu, the son of God. Those who believe in the doctrine of reincarnation, will find no difficulty in accepting this view. Mrs. Besant has declared that Jesus was reborn in India as Rāmānuja. May it not be that Śrī Madhva, the greatest Vaiṣṇava reformer, in the direct line of whose disciples we may count Rāmānanda, Kabir, Nānak, Tulsi Dāss, and the great Caitanya of Bengal, was himself the incarnation of what he claims himself to be, namely, of Vāyu or Christ? May it not be that the modern Hindus are really Christians in its better and truer sense, and need not be ashamed to call themselves Vaiṣṇavas, the worshippers of one True God and Christians or adorers of His beloved Son.

S. C. V.

Bareilly:
14th July 1910.