Sixth Adhyaya, First Khanda (7 mantras)

Mantra 6.1.1.

1. There lived once Śvetaketu Āruṇeya. To him his father said “Śvetaketu, go to the house of a teacher to study the Vedas; for there is none belonging to our family, O son, who has not studied (Vedas) and is merely like a kinsman of Brāhmaṇas.—401.

Mantra 6.1.2.

2. Having gone when twelve years old, he came back, when he was twenty-four years of age, having studied all the Vedas, greatly conceited, considering himself well-read, and arrogant. His father said to him; “Śvetaketu, since thou art so conceited, considering thyself well-read, and arrogant, didst thou ask for that instruction.—402.

Mantra 6.1.3.

3. By hearing about which we hear (learn about) that which was never heard before, by understanding which we understand what was never understood before, by meditating on which we know even that which was never known before. Śvetaketu replied “What is that instruction, Sir.”—403.

Mantra 6.1.4.

4. The father replied “My dear child, as by knowing one clod of clay, all that is made of clay is made known, (by its similarity to clay), so is that instruction: or as by knowing the true word Mṛttikā all other words (like mitti,etc., are known) for they are corruptions of it, owing to the difference of pronunciation, caused by the organ of speech.—404.

Mantra 6.1.5.

5. As my child, by knowing one nugget of gold (as gold or metal) all that is made of metal is made known (by its similarity,), so is that instraction; or as by knowing the correct word Loha, (all other words like Lohā, etc., are known) for they are corruptions of it, owing to the difference of pronunciation, caused by the organ of speech.—405.

Mantra 6.1.6.

6. And as, dear child, by knowing one pair of nail-scissors all that is made of black metal is known by its similarity with it, so is that instruction: or as by knowing the correct word Kārṣṇāyasam (Kārṣṇāyasa) one knows all other words, which are corruptions of it owing to the difference of pronunciation, caused by the organ of speech.—406.

Mantra 6.1.7.

7. The son said: “Surely those venerable men (my teachers) did not know that. For if they had known it, why should they not have told it to me? Do you, Sir, tell me that.” ‘Be it so,’ said the father.—407.

Madhva’s commentary called the Bhāṣya:

In the previous books, have been taught the various kinds of meditations, which lead to “Release” and other inferior rewards, for persons who know the Lord who is the Best of all, the most compassionate and possessing all auspicious qualities and who is different from the Jīvas and the inanimate world-stuff. This sixth book establishes, by arguments, the great difference between the Lord and Souls and Matter. It removes the doubt as regards the difference (bheda) between God and man. Śvetaketu is taught this doctrine and through him the teaching is given to the whole world.. The story states that Śvetaketu, when a boy, was sent by his father to learn Vedas. After studying for twelve years, Śvetaketu returned home when he was twenty-four years of age. The text says “Śvetaketu returned to his father, when he was twenty-four, having then studied all the Vedas.” The phrase in the original is “Sa dvādaśa varṣa upetya” which is generally translated as “when he was twelve years old, then he commenced his apprenticeship.” But a Brāhman boy is to be initiated at an earlier age: and further Śvetaketu’s father was remiss in his duties towards his son, in not initiating him earlier. To remove this misconception, the Commentator shows that the phrase “dvādaśa-varṣa” is not to be taken as showing the age at which he was sent to Gurukula. Śvetaketu was sent to the Guru at the proper age of eight (or seven), and returned at the age of twenty-four. Out of the sixteen years passed with his Guru, Śvetaketu spent only twelve years in Vedic study. Therefore he is called the twelve-yeared Śvetaketu, because he spent only 12 years on the Vedas and the remaining years on something else.

Or he went to the Guru’s house when ho was twelve years old, though he was initiated at the proper age of eight, and passed his earlier years in reading with his father.

Thus it is written in the Vākya Nirṇaya:—

“Śvetaketu is called in the Bhārata Dvādaśa-Varṣa twelve-yeared, because he studied for twelve years only. It does not mean that Śvetaketu was apprenticed (Upanayana) at the age of twelve.”

Note.—Twelve years is the time necessary for mastering one Veda, and 48 years to master all the four. Śvetaketu however seems to have mastered all the Vedas in twelve years, and so got the epithet of “twelve-yeared.” In other words he was a precocious youth; with all the conceit of a precocious person.

According to Śaṅkara this sixth Adhyāya is but an expansion of what was taught in the previous ones. In Khaṇḍa III. 14. 1. it was taught “Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma”—all this is verily Brahman, then further on in VI.24.2 it is said that when a man who knows Brahman takes his food the whole universe is satisfied, because the Ātmā being one, the satisfaction of the Jñānī is the satisfaction of the whole world. Uddālaka teaches the same doctrine to his son, by the three illustrations of a clod of clay, a nugget of gold (Lohamani) and a pair of nail-scissors. Uddālaka, also teaches that all is Brahman. These four mantras VI.1.3 to 6 are thus translated, according to Advaitins:—His father said to him, “Śvetaketu, as you are so conceited, considering yourself so well-read, and so stern, my dear, have you ever asked for that instruction by which we hear what cannot be heard, by which we perceive, what cannot be perceived, by which we know what cannot be known?” “What is that instruction, Sir?” he asked. The father replied: “My dear, as by one clod of clay is known all that is made of clay, the difference being only a name, arising from speech but the truth being that all is clay; and as, my dear, by one nugget of gold all that is made of gold is known, the difference being only a name, arising from speech, but the truth being that all is gold; and as, my dear, by one pair of nail-scissors all that is made of iron is known, the difference being only a name, arising from speech, but the truth being that all is iron, thus my dear, is that instruction!”

The Advaitins take this to be a text strongly in their favour. According to them, all the three illustrations have the same sense. Madhva shows that the three illustrations teach three kinds of similarity and difference; and this passage is far from teaching Advaita The first illustration shows that as by knowing a clod of clay, every other object made of clay is known, through similarity so also here. By knowing that the Lord is existent and real, we know that this world is also real; for the law of similarity works here also. If Viṣṇu, the Creator is real, the world, His creation cannot be unreal.

As by knowing a clod of clay, through the very fact of this similarity alone, all objects macle of clay are known, so from the similarity with the reality of Viṣṇu is known that the world is also real.

The world and the God are both equal so far as they are both real. But the Lord is infinitely superior to the world. The second illustration shows this superiority.

For when gold is known, then its superiority over iron is necessarily known. So when the Lord is known, His superiority over the world is necessarily known.

As by the knowledge of gold one knows that everything made of iron is inferior to it, so by knowing the Lord Viṣṇu, it is at once known that He is superior to the world.

The similarity here consists between a superior and inferior; as gold is superior to iron, so the Lord is superior to the world.

The third illustration of a pair of scissors shows that sometimes by knowing a small quantity we can know, by the law of analogy, the attributes of that in which that substance exists in a large quantity. As by knowing a small quantity of iron, one knows the larger mass of iron; so by knowing man, as having a small quantity of happiness, wisdom and sentiency and consciousness, one knows the Lord in whom these qualities exist in their infinity.

Since by knowing a thing, which is very small in quantity, one can know analogy, the same substance when it is in very large quantity, as by knowing a pair of scissors made of iron, the attributes of iron existing in a large mass are also known (so from the knowledge of man, there is the knowledge of Viṣṇu).

But says one objector—This is not a fit illustration. Viṣṇu is vast, the world is small: to judge the big from the small is wrong. The Commentator says, “true: it is not always good to judge the great from the small. It is not always true that the knowledge of the small gives a complete knowledge of the large. But it is always true that the knowledge of the big includes the knowledge of small.”

Therefore he says:—

Since even by knowing a small thing, by analogy we can know the big, as by knowing a pair of scissors made of iron we can know all iron; how much more must it be true that by knowing Brahman who is large and (All-Infinite) we can know this world which is so small.

In other words the knowing of the Lord includes knowing the world. He who knows the Lord, must a fortiori know the world. He who knows the whole, knows the part; he who knows the large, knows the small.

In fact by knowing Him who depends upon none, is similarly known that which depends upon him: as by the knowing the Sanskrit names mṛttikā, ayas, etc., one comes to know all the corruptions from these words such as mitti, Mud, etc. Thus it is in Sāmasaṃhitā.

The Sanskrit names are eternal, and it being the universal language of man and gods, he who knows Sanskrit, has all the advantages and more, which a person knowing a particular dialect has. All non-Sanskrit words are either corruptions of Sanskrit as ‘cow’ of ‘go,’ ‘heart’ of ‘hṛd;’ ‘father’ of ‘Pitṛ’ and so on. Or such words are conventional creations; but Sanskrit being the language of the whole world at one time, a person knowing Sanskrit would not require to learn the dialect of every province, in order to make himself understood. In ancient times, Sanskrit was the esperanto of the world, and all could understand it.

The word “Lohamani” in V. 1.5 means gold, as we find it so explained in the Śabda-Nirṇaya:—“The words Svarna [Svarṇa?], Loha Maṇi and Puraṭa all mean Gold.”

The word Lohamani is a Yoga-ruḍhi [Yogarūḍhi?] word. It means etymologically “the best (maṇi) of the metals (loha),” therefore Gold.

The Commentator now shows how the explanation of this Khaṇḍa, as given by Śaṅkara is wrong. The latter takes this khaṇḍa as teaching that all vikāra or variety or modification is false. But if the Śruti meant to teach that all vikāra is false, then it would not have used the words eka, piṇḍa, and maṇi, for they are then not only redundant, but positively misleading:—And instead of saying “by knowing one clod of clay, all that is made of clay is known,” it would have said:—“by knowing clay all that is made of clay is known,” and instead of saying:—“by knowing one nugget of gold all that is made of gold is known,” it would have said:—“by knowing gold all that is made of gold is known,” and instead of saying:—“by knowing one pair of nail-scissors all that is made of iron is known,” it would have said:—“by knowing iron, all that is made of iron is known.”

Thus the word eka repeated thrice is useless. Similarly the word piṇḍa (clod) maṇi (nugget) and nakha-nikrintana (nail-scissors) are also redundant. While the word sarva (all), thrice repeated, is misleading. For all things made of gold, or clay or iron are not modifications of one nugget of gold or of one clod of clay or of one pair of nail-scissors. Moreover the theory of advaita is that the world is superimposed on Brahman, as a snake is superimposed on rope. But this Khaṇḍa does not show that all that is made of clay is superimposed on one clod of clay, etc. Therefore, the Commentator says

If the Śruti meant to teach modification (vikāra), the words eka, piṇḍa and maṇi would be useless.

While according to our explanation the words eka (one) and sarva (all) are perfectly relevant, for they are necessary in order to teach similarity. We take this khaṇḍa to teach sādṛśya [similarity, and not vikāra (modification)]. Thus the word piṇḍa is used to show the similarity of two things as far as the sattva-hood is concerned, both are real, and none false. The word maṇi is used to show pre-eminence of one over the other, for maṇi means pre-eminence. While a nail-scissors which is a very small thing shows the inferiority of the universe as compared with Brahman.

The Advaitins explain the next passage vācārambhana, etc., thus the vikāra (difference) is only a name, arising from speech, but the truth being that all is clay, gold, or iron.” The Commentator shows the inconsistencies of this explanation

Moreover the word “iti” repeated thrice, as “mṛttikā iti”, “lohamani [lohamaṇi?] iti”, “kārṣṇāyasam iti”, is useless; and similarly the word nāmadheya, used thrice. Had the Śruti meant to teach that the vikāra (modification or difference) was false, it would have said the clay alone is true, the gold alone is true, the iron alone is true,” and not the words nāmadheya and iti.

For then the meaning would be: “the difference is a matter of speech only, the clay is true; the difference is a matter of speech only, the gold is true; the difference is a matter of speech only, the iron is true.” The words nāmadheya and iti would be useless. For according to Śaṅkara the word nāmadheya means “a name only.” Now a name only and the phrase “a matter of speech” vācārambhanam have the same significance, and one or the other is redundant. The word ‘iti’ is a mark of quotation, and is used to denote words and not substances, of which the words are names. Therefore the “mṛttikā iti” cannot denote the substance clay but the word form mṛttakā meaning clay. Tn fact, without using the word ‘iti’ the substance clay would have been denoted, by using merely the word mṛttikā. Thus it is useless according to Śaṅkara. But according to our explanation, the word ‘iti’ is not useless, for we explain that iti points to the wordform mṛttikā, and say: “The word-form mṛttikā is the true, namely, the correct word, while words like mud, miṭṭi, māṭi, etc., are vernacular corruptions (vikāra) of it. Moreover there is no word in this Khaṇḍa which shows that difference is ‘false,’ for the word false occurs nowhere in it. The word vācārambhana cannot be taken to mean false. For neither technically, nor etymologically this word means false. Moreover as the phrase “he ate bread only,” implies that he took nothing with his bread like condiments, so it is a name only, would mean that there was no substance in it.

But there is no such word as only” (mātra) in the above sentence. It is not “vacārambhana mātram”, (so you cannot say it means by implication falsehood).

Thus the word vācārambhana does not mean arising from speech, but utterance through the organ of speech. All corruptions of pure Sanskrit words are due to the defect of utterance, are the outcome of the difference of the organ of speech. Vāc means the organ of speech, i.e., the larynx and ārambhana [ārambhaṇa?] means utterance.

The word ārambhana [ārambhaṇa?] does not mean arising, but it denotes an action. Thus vācārambhana means “the change (vikāra) of pure words into dialects, is due to the utterance (ārambhaṇa) through different organs of speech.” The word vikāra means the varieties (vi) of corruptions (kāra). The varieties of corruption of the pure word depend upon the varieties of the organs of speech. The word satya [satyam] qualifies nāmadheya [nāmadheyam]. Thus “satyam nāmadheya” means the original word is the true or the eternally existent. The meaning is that the Sanskrit words like mṛttikā, etc., are eternally existent, but not their corruptions. The word satya means ‘eternal,’ because the wise know (ya) it as pervading (tata [tatam]) all time as a substance (sat) in other words, that whose substance exists through all time is ‘true’ or satya [satyam]. All other words, foreign or vernacular are either corruptions or mere conventions made my men. Since these words are conventional or symbolic only, therefore they are vikāra or modified forms of the originals.

Says an object or the word vikāra is masculine, how can it be construed with ārambhanam [ārambhaṇam?], a neuter noun?

To this the Commentator says:—

The word vikāra being a word which is always masculine, remains unchanged when construed with words of other genders. The phrase ārambhanam vikāraḥ is, as good as, the well-known phrase “Vedaḥ pramānam [pramāṇam?]”. Moreover it is not correct to say that the words māṭi, etc., are vikāra of the original word mṛttikā. Strictly speaking no word is a vikāra of another word, every word is vikāra of ākāśa. The whole Khaṇḍa describing the pre-eminence of Sanskrit over non-Sanskrit words, really teaches the pre-eminence of the Lord over every thing else. The cosmogony taught in the next Khaṇḍa is also for the sake of teaching the superiority of the Lord.