Chandogya Upanishad (Shankara Bhashya)

by Ganganatha Jha | 1942 | 149,749 words | ISBN-10: 8170842840 | ISBN-13: 9788170842842

This is the English translation of the Chandogya Upanishad, an ancient philosophical text originally written in Sanksrit and dating to at least the 8th century BCE. Having eight chapters (adhyayas) and many sub-sections (khandas), this text is counted among the largest of it's kind. The Chandogya Upanishad, being connected to the Samaveda, represen...

Section 2.23 (twenty-third khaṇḍa) (three texts)

Upaniṣad text:

There are three branches of Duty: Sacrifice, Study and Charity—constitute the first; Austerity itself is the second; the Religious Student resident in the teacher’s house, constantly mertifying himself in the teacher’s house, is the third.—All these attain the Blessed Regions; one who rests firmly in Brahman attains immortality.—(1)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

With a view to completing the injunction of meditation of the syllable ‘Om’, the Text proceeds with the next section, beginning with the words ‘There are three branches of Duty’. It should not be thought that ‘the final reward is obtained by meditating upon the syllable Om, in the form of Udgītha and other constituent factors of Sāma (as described in the foregoing sections)’. On the contrary, it is by meditating upon the syllable Om purely by itself that one obtains the final reward. Immortality, which cannot be attained by all:the meditations of Sāma or by other (ritualistic) acts. It has, however, been introduced in the present context dealing with Sāma, for the purpose of eulogising it.

Three—Three in number—are the branches of Duty,— i.e. Divisions of Duty.—‘What are they?’—Answer I—(a) Sacrifice,—in the form of Agnihotra and other rites,—(b) Study,—the careful reading of the Ṛk and other Vedas, along with all the rules and regulations.—(c) Charity— making gifts outside the sacrificial altar, i. e. distribution of wealth according to one’s resources among persons seeking for it. These three constitute the first branch of Duty,— [The meaning is that this is one branch, as is clear from] the meaning of the second and the third, and it does not mean that it is the ‘first’ in the sense of initial step; in fact, the duties herein mentioned are all such as appertain to the Householder, and thus the Householder, as fulfilling these duties, serves to indicate the first Branch \ of Duty. (represented by the Householder).—

Answer II—Austerity itself is the Second;—‘Austerity’ stands for the Kṛcchra. the Cāndrāyaṇa and other penances; one who keeps all these is the Tāpasa, Ascetic, or the Wandering Mendicant who has merely just reached the final life-stage, but has not yet rested firmly in Brahman; that such is the sense is indicated by the separate mention of ‘one who rests firmly in Brahman. This is the second Branch of Duty (represented by the Ascetic).—

Answer III—The Religious Student resident in the Teacher’s House,—i.e. one who is habitually residing with the Teacher,—constantly—i.e. throughout his life,—mortifying himself—i.e. crushing his body by means of fasts and penances. This is the third Branch of knowledge. The qualification ‘constantly’ indicates that this stage is represented by the lifelong Religious Student; as for the ordinary Religious Student, his studentship is for the definite purpose of studying the Veda, and hence such studentship could not take one to the ‘Sacred Regions.’

All these three kinds of persons—carrying on the prescribed duties in their respective life-stages (of the Householder, the Ascetic and the Life-long Religious Student) attain the Blessed Regions.—The meaning is that the persons carrying on the duties of the life-stages come to be such as enter the Blessed Regions.—

The one class of persons that remains unnamed is the Wandering Mendicant, the Renunciate, (the Sanyāsī) who is here indicated by the term ‘one who rests in Brahman,’—i.e, one who rests firmly in Brahman;—he attains Immortality which is entirely distinct from the said ‘Sacred Regions’, it stands for absolute cessation of death; this cessation of death is absolute not relative, like the ‘Immortality’ of the Deities; that this is so is clearly indicated by the fact that it has been declared to be entirely distinct from the ‘Sacred Regions’.—If ‘Immortality were only a higher degree of Blessed Regions,’ then the Text would not have spoken of it as some thing distinct from the Blessed Regions. Thus, because it has been spoken of as clearly distinguished from the ‘Blessed Regions’, it follows that what is meant is Absolute Immortallity.

The introduction, in the present context, of the subject of the reward of the fulfilment of the Duties of the Lifestages is meant to eulogise the meditation of the syllable ‘Om’ and it is not meant to mention the rewards that actually follow from the said fulfilment. If it were meant to eulogise the meditation of ‘Om’, and also to mention the rewards actually following from the due fulfilment of the Duties of the Life-stages,—then there would be syntactical split. Hence the conclusion is that when the text speaks of Immortality as the reward of meditating on ‘Om’, with reference to the duties of the Life-stages already known through ten Smṛti-texts,—it only glorifies the meditation of ‘Om’. This is similar to the case of such an assertion as ‘Service under Pūrṇavarman brings only food and clothing, while that under Rājavarman brings rewards equal to kingship’.—The syllable ‘Om’ really is the ‘true* the Highest Brahman, being, as it is, the representative (image, name) of this latter,—as declared in the Katha-Upaniṣad—‘This syllable indeed is the Brahman, verily this syllable is the Highest’, hence it is only right that Immortality should be the reward of meditating upon it.

Some people (the Vṛttikāra, acc. to Ānandagiri) offer the following explanation “What is meant by the assertion that ‘all these attain the Blessed Regions’ is that persons of all life-stages without any distinction, reach the Blessed Regions by the due performance of their duties, even without having attained the True Knowledge (of Brahman)—and in this general assertion, there is no exception made in regard to the Wandering Mendicant (the Renunciate); in fact, for the Wandering Mendicant also. Knowledge, Restraints and Observances have been prescribed and all this constitutes ‘Austerity’ which has been placed, in the text in the second category in the words ‘Austerity itself is the second’, where the term ‘austerity’ includes both the Ascetic and the Wandering Mendicant, Thus the meaning of the second clause also—‘One who rests firmly in Brahman attains immortality’—is that among the same said persons in all the four life-stages, if any one 'rests firmly in Brahman—i.e. Meditates upon ‘Om’—he attains immortality; that such is the meaning is clear from the fact that all persons (in the four Life-stages) are equally entitled to it,—and that the ‘firm resting in Brahman’ has not been expressly precluded (from any one of the four Life-stages); and that it is quite within the capacity of all these persons to ‘rest firmly in Brahman’ (i.e. meditate on ‘Om’, which represents Brahman) during the intervals of the performance of their duties (relating to their respective life-stages);—nor is the connotation of the term ‘resting firmly in Brāhman’ rigidly restricted by convention to the Wandering Mendicant only; like such ordinary words as ‘Barley, Boar’ and the like; as its use is based entirely upon the fact of ‘resting in Brahman’ (which is what it literally connotes); while words that have their use dependent entirely upon convention do not have their use dependent upon any such connotation of the term, (etymologically). Then again, it is possible for all men to ‘rest in Brahman’. Thus then wherever this basis of the use of the term, ‘resting firmly in Brahman is present,—every one such person comes under the connotation of the term ‘firmly resting in Brahman’, and there is no reason for narrowing its connotation to the Wandering Mendicant alone; and hence it cannot be right to so restrict it.—Further, Immortality cannot follow merely from entering into the life-stage of the Wandering Mendicant; for, if that were so, then there would be no need for True Knowledge (which alone can bring Immortality).—It might be argued that ‘what leads to Immortality is True Knowledge as accompanied by the life of the Wandering Mendicant—But that cannot be right; because the duties relating to the other (three) life-stages are as important ‘duties’ as those relating to that of the Wandering Mendicant; hence if Duty coupled with True Knowledge be what brings Immortality, then that also applies equally to the Duties of all the life-stages (not to those of the Wandering Mendicant only). Nor is there any direct declaration to the effect that Final Liberation comes only to the Wandering Mendicant resting firmly in Brahman, and not to others. In fact the thesis of all the Upaniṣads is that Final Liberation follows from True Knowledge. Hence the meaning of the text must be that, from among persons duly performing the duties of their own life-stages, if any one ‘rests firmly in Brahman’, he attains Immortality.

This interpretation is not right; as there is clear incompatibility between the basic principle underlying ‘Action’ and that underlying ‘True Knowledge’. For instance, all injunctions relating to Action—such as ‘Do this’, ‘Do not do this’,—proceed on the basis of such notions of diversity as those of the Actor and the Active Agencies, of the Action and of the Result of the Action; and all these diverse notions do not proceed from the scriptures, being found, as they are, in all living beings (and not confined to men only);—on the other hand, the basic principle underlying True Knowledge has its basis in such scriptural texts as ‘Being, one; without a record’, ‘All this is Self alone’, ‘All this is Brahman alone and it does not appear until it has set aside all those common notions of Action, Actor and Result on which the Injunctions of Action are based; the reason for this is that there is complete incompatibility between the notion of diversity (on which all Action rests) and the notion of No-difference (Oneness—upon which True Knowledge rests). For instance, until the notion of diversity involved in the perception of ‘two noons’ due to darkness has been removed, there does not appear, even on the disappearance of darkness, the notion of the ‘one Moon’. And the reason for this lies in the fact that there is incompatibility between the idea based upon Knowledge and that based upon Ignorance. Such being the case, when the injunctions of Action have proceeded on the basis of the notion of diversity,—it is only when for a certain person this notion of diversity has been set aside by the notion of unity brought about by the force of such texts as ‘One alone without a second’, ‘That alone is real, all diversity of modifications is unreal’,—that such a person desists from all Action, for the reason that the very basis (of Action) has ceased to exist; and it is only such a person who has thus desisted from all activity who is said to ‘rest firmly in Brahman’; and such a person can be only the Wandering Mendicant, (Renunciate); it is impossible for any others to fulfil the said conditions.—Another person, whose notions of diversity have not ceased, always sees, hears, thinks of and cognises things as different (from himself and diverse), and always thinks in such terms as ‘Having done this act, I shall acquire such and such a thing’; and certainly one who thinks thus cannot be said to ‘rest firmly in Brahman’; because his ideas are all false and wrong as pertaining to unrealities which owe their existence to mere modifications of speech [i.e. have no existence apart from the merely verbal one]. When the notion of diversity has been set aside as false, there is no possibility of any such notions of means and objects of cognition as are involved in ideas like ‘this is true’, ‘this should be done- by him’ or ‘by me jtst as for a man who is wise and knows the real nature of the’sky, there is no possibility of the idea that ‘the sky is dirty’.—If, even on the setting aside of the notion of diversity, a man were not to desist from Action and were to continue to act just as before the setting aside of the notions of diversity—then the text laying down the idea of Unity would become falsified; and yet, the text declaring Unity must be regarded as valid and true, just like the texts prohibiting the eating of improper food and such acts;—because all the Upaniṣads bear testimony to that (Unity).

It might be argued that “Under the above explanation the Vedic Injunctions of Action become invalidated.”

To this our reply is as follows:—This is not so; the said injunctions would still continue to be valid, in relation to the man whose notions of diversity have not ceased; just as the cognition during dream is quite real before waking.

“But the very fact that discriminating (wise) men would not perform the acts enjoined would strike at the very root of the validity of the injunctions of those acts.”

Not so; because we do not see any such invalidation of the injunctions of prospective Act’s; these acts are enjoined as to be done by persons desiring particular rewards (such as wealth, offspring and the like); and these are not performed by certain wise persons who entertain no such desire on the strength of such texts as ‘This hankering after desires is not to be commended’ and yet this non-performance by these men does not invalidate the injunctions of those Prospective Acts; in fact the acts are only performed by those persons who are still entertaining the desire for such rewards. Similarly, if actions are not performed by those ‘resting in Brahman’ and knowing Brahman,—that docs not invalidate the injunctions of the actions; in fact, they continue to be duly performed by persons who have not yet attained the knowledge of Brahman.

Says the opponent—“(According to you also) even for Wandering Mendicants, there is no cessation of such activities as are involved in Begging for Food and the like;—in the same manner for the Householder and persons in the other life-stages—even after they have acquired the knowledge of Unity, there heed be no cessation of such acts as the Agnihotra and the like.”

Not so; because when we are considering the validity of certain sources of knowledge, the citing of an instance of human activity cannot prove anything. For example, though the act of killing has been prohibited by the text ‘One should not encompass the death of any man’,—the mere fact of some one having been found to have done the Killing does not lead the wise man who has no hatred for any body to do the act of killing (merely on the strength of the example of the man who has been found to have done the killing). In fact, when the notion of diversity which is the very basis of the injunction of actions, has been set aside (for the wise man), there is nothing to urge the man to the performance of the Agnihotra and such acts;—in the case of the Renunciate begging for food, the necessary urge comes from hunger and such other bodily needs.

“In the case of the Agnihotra also, there would be the urge coming from the fear of sin (involved in the nonperformance of a prescribed act).”

Nor so, we reply. Because the injunction of the said acts concerns and is applicable to only such persons as are still tied to the notions of diversity; we have already explained that only such persons are entitled to the performance of Actions as are still tied to the notions of diversity, which notions they have not yet got rid of; and it is only when a man is entitled to the performance of an act that its nonperformance by him entails sin, and not when the man has ceased to be so entitled; for example, the Householder does not incur sin by the non-performance of the duties laid down specifically for the Religious Student.

“If that be so, then each and every man, in his own particular life-stage, could be a Renunciate as soon as the notion of Unity would dawn upon him.”

Certainly not; because (in the other life-stages) there is no cessation of that much of the notion of diversity as is involved in the idea of owner and owned (which persists throughout the three earlier life-stages); and that it so persists is indicated by the very nature of those life-stages, which are meant for the performance of acts, as is clear from such Vedic texts as—‘May we perform acts’ and the like.—From this it is clear that it is only the Renunciate, who is entirely devoid of all ideas of owner and owned, who can be regarded as the Wandering Mendicant; not so the Householder and other persons.

“When the injunction of the notion of Unity has brought about this notion of Unity, it has (ex hypothesi) set aside the notion of diversity based upon the injunctions of actions,—and as a necessary consequence of this, there can be no possibility of such acts for the Wandering Mendicant as the keeping of observances and restraints etc. prescribed for him.”

Not so, we reply. Because the keeping of such observances and restraints is quite possible for the Wandering Mendicant who may, for the time being, have deviated from the notion of Unity on account of Hunger and such other physical needs; specially as the observances and restraints are for the purpose of desisting from activity (and not of doing any positive act). Nor does the keeping of the observances and restraints involve recourse to activity that has been prohibited (for the Wandering Mendicant); because the prohibition relates to the man before he has realised Unity. Because a man has fallen into the well, or in a thorn-thicket at night,—it does not follow that he should fall in it even after sunrise.

From all this it follows that the only person who can be regarded as ‘resting in Brahman’ is the Renunciate, the Wandering Mendicant, who has turned his back upon all Actions.

It has been argued (by the Vṛttikāra) that “the blessed regions are for all persons, even those who are devoid of True Knowledge”;—this is quite true; but it is not true that “the term Austerity includes the Wandering Mendicant also”.—“Why”—Because the character of ‘resting in Brahman’ can belong to the Wandering Mendicant only, as it is he alone who remains unmentioned in the text so far; as we have already explained above. Another reason for this lies in the fact that, for the man who has attained the Knowledge of Unity, Austerity also ceases; just like Agnihotra and other acts. It is only for the man still beset with notions of diversity that there can be need for the performance of Austerities.

This same reasoning also serves to set aside the views that (a) “the resting in Brahman may appear during the intervals of ritualistic performance”, and (b) that “there is no exclusion by any Vedic Text of the possibility of resting in Brahman (for persons other than Wandering Mendicants).” Our view is that it is only when the man has attained True Knowledge that, on desisting from all activity, he can become a Wandering Mendicant;—and this disposes of the argument (urged against us) that (under our view) the acquiring of knowledge becomes entirely futile.

Then again, it has been argued that “like the terms ‘barley’ find ‘boar’, the term ‘resting in Brahman’ has not got its connotation restricted by convention, to the Wandering Mendicant only.”—This has been already answered by us, by proving that the character of ‘resting in Brahman’ can possibly belong only to the Wandering Mendicant, not to any one else.

It has been argued that “words whose connotation is fixed by convention do not depend upon any other considerations (as those of etymology and the like)”.—But that is not right. Because we find many such words as (a) ‘Householder’ (Gṛhastha), (b) ‘Wood-cutter’ (Takṣā) (c) ‘Wandering Mendicant’ (Parivrājaka) and the like; as a matter of fact, even all these terms have their connotations dependent upon (a) the act of living in the House, (b) the act of wood-cutting, and (c) the act of wandering about in search of food (which acts are etymologically signified by the terms); and yet they arc found to have their connotations fixed by convention, as applying to persons in the two life-stages (of Householder and of Wandering Mendicant) and to a particular caste, that of the wood-cutter. But it does not follow from this that those terms are applicable anywhere and everywhere where the said conditions may be present [i.e. by merely living in house one does not become a Householder, nor does he become a Wandering Mendicant merely by wandering about in search of alms]; because such is not the recognised connotation of the terms. Similarly in the case in question also, the term ‘resting in Brahman’ can, in the present context, have its connotation restricted to the person who has desisted from all actions and their agencies and has become a Wandering Mendicant, i.e. the Renunciate who has entered upon the final life-stage, and is technically called ‘Paramahaṃsa’. That this is so is indicated by the mention of the principal reward of Immortality accruing as to him. From all this it follows that it is this ‘Wandering-Mendicancy’ that is meant by the Veda (as leading to Immortality), and not that in which people take to the Sacrificial Thread, the Triple-Stick, the Water-Pot and the rest; that this is so is also shown by such Vedic texts as “With shaven head, with no belongings and no attachment etc.” To the same end there are such Vedic Texts as the following in the Śvetāśvatara-Upaniṣad.—‘The Highest sacred place is for those who are above the ordinary life-stages,’—and in such Smṛti Texts as ‘Without praise, without obeisances, etc.’; so also in such Smṛti-Texts as—‘It is for this reason that Renunciates, seeing through the end of things, do not perform actions.’—‘Hence one knowing Dharma, should be without differentiating marks, or with unobtrusive marks’, etc., etc,

The ‘renunciation of Action’ which is propounded by the Sāṅkhyas is wrong: inasmuch as they admit the reality of such distinctions as between ‘Action’, ‘Active Agency’ and ‘Results.’

Similarly, the theory of ‘Void’ (Nihilism) propounded by the Bauddhas, and the consequent denial of the ‘Active Agent’, (as the performer of Action)—are not right; as they admit the reality of the person who holds the said theory.

Then, there is the theory based upon sheer laziness that ‘One should not perform actions’. This also is not right, because for such people the notion of the ‘Active Agent* has not been set aside by any valid source of knowledge.

From all this it follows that it is only when on the strength of the Vedantic Texts, one has reached firm conviction regarding Unity, that he reaches the real ‘Renunciation of Action’ which constitutes the stage of the Wandering Mendicant and that of ‘Resting in Brahaman [Brahman?]’. From this also it follows that if, in a certain case, a Householder has attained the knowledge of unity (and thereby set aside all notions of diversity) he also naturally attains the position of the Wandering Mendicant.

Objection:—“Such a Householder, taking to the life of the Wandering Mendicant, would incur the sin of destroying his Fires,—as declared in the Smṛti texts—“One who destroys his fires becomes the murderer of the bravest among deities”.

Not so, because in such a case, the fire becomes destroyed by its own destiny; in fact, the fire becomes destroyed by itself as soon as the conviction of Unity is realised; as declared in the Śruti Texts—‘The fireness of the fire has disappeared etc., etc.’—Hence by taking to the life of the Wandering Mendicant, the Householder does not incur any sin. -(1)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

The text next describes that (Being or Entity) by resting in which one attains Immortality.

Upaniṣad text:

Prajāpati brooded upon the Regions; from these, thus brooded upon, the Threefold Science issued forth. He brooded upon this, and from this, thus brooded upon, issued the syllables ‘Bhūḥ’, ‘BhuvaḥandSvaḥ’—(2)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

Prajāpati i.e., Virāt or Kaśyapa thought of the Regions; and in order to get at the essence of these Regions, He brooded over them,—continued to think of, reflect upon, them.—From these, thus brooded upon, the Threefold Science issued forth,—as the essence of the Regions; that is, the said Science became revealed to the mind of Prajāpati.—He brooded upon the Science etc., etc., as before;—and from the Science, thus brooded upon, the following syllables issued—‘bhūḥ’, ‘bhuvaḥ’ and ‘svāḥ [svaḥ?] which are called ‘Vyāhṛtis.’—(2)

Upaniṣad text:

He brooded upon these; from them thus brooded upon, issued the syllable ‘Om’; just as alt leaves are permeated by the stalk, so is all Speech permeated by the syllable ‘Om’. The ‘Om’ syllable is all this,—yea, the syllable ‘Om’ is all this.—(3)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

He brooded over the said syllables; from them, thus brooded upon, issued the syllable ‘om’, and this is Brahman.—The rest describes what this is like:—Just as all leaves,—all parts of the leaves,—are permeated— pierced, i.e. pervaded—by the stalk—the twig to which the leaves hang,—so, in, the same manner is all Speech—all words—permeated by the syllable ‘Om’, which is Brahman, the very image of the Supreme Self; as declared in such Vedic texts as—‘The letter A is all speech’. Every name is a mere evolute of the Supreme Self; hence all this is the syllable ‘Om.’—The repetition is meant to indicate the importance of the declaration.—The description of the origin of the Regions and other things serves the purpose of eulogising the syllable ‘Om.’—(3)

End of Section (23) of Discourse II.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: