Section 4.10 (tenth khaṇḍa) (five texts)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

With a view to expound the Philosophy of Brahman in another manner,—the Text proceeds to expound the Agnividyā, the Science of the Fires, and to describe the man who knows it.—As before the story is introduced for the purpose of showing that faith and austerity are necessary for the acquisition of the knowledge of Brahman.

Upaniṣad text:

Upakosala, the son of Kamala dwelt as a Religious Student with Satyakāma-Jābāla. It is said that he tended his fires for twelve years. But though the Teacher permitted the other disciples to ‘return’ Home, yet he did not permit Upakosala to ‘return’.—(1)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

Upakosala—by name—the son of Kamala, dwelt as Religious Student, with Satyakāma-Jābāla. The phrase ‘Sa ha’ indicates that this has been said so by people. He tended his—the Teacher’s—fires for twelve years;—i.e. Performed his duties of attending on them. But while the Teacher permitted the other disciples to return Home,—after having taught them the Veda,—he did not permit Upakosala to return.—(1)

Upaniṣad text:

His wife said to him—‘This Religious Student has performed his austerities, and has tended your fires very well; so that the fires may not blame you, you should teach him’. But he went away, without having taught him.—(2)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

To the Teacher, his wife said—This Religious Student has performed his austerities, and has tended the fires very well,—attended upon them in the proper manner: and yet you, sir, are not permitting him, who is so devoted to the fires, to return home (complete his course); so that the fires may not blame you, that you are not completing the course for one so devoted to them,—You should teach him—that is, impart to Upakosala the teaching that he desires’.—But without having said anything to him,—though so requested by his wife,—the sage went away.—(2)

Upaniṣad text:

Through suffering he resolved not to eat. The Teacher’s wife said to him—‘O, Religious’ Student, do eat, why do you not eat?—He said—There are, in this person, many longings extending in several directions; I am full of sufferings; I shall not eat’.—(3)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

He—Upakosala—through sufferings—mental anguish,—resolved—made up his mind—not to eat,—i.e. to keep fast.—When he was sitting quietly in the fire-house the Teacher’s wife said to him—‘O, Religious Student, do eat,—take your food;—why—for what reason—do you not eat?—He said—’ In this person,—in myself, the common disappointed man,—there are many-numerous—longings— desires—regarding what shall be done; and these extend in several directions;—i.e. the extent of those longings and sorrows regarding what should be done goes out in several directions.—I am full of sufferings—that is, of mental anguish due to the non-fulfilment of my duties; hence I shall not eat’.—(3)

Upaniṣad text:

Thereupon the Fires said among themselves—‘This Religious Student has performed austerities and has tended us very well; well, let us teach him’. And they said to him—‘Breath is Brahman, Ka is Brahman; Kha is Brahman.’—(4)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

After having answered the Teacher’s wife, when the Religious Student resumed his silence, the three Fires,—having been won over by his service, and roused by pity—said among themselves—‘Well, we should all teach this Religious Student, who is devoted to us and is suffering mental anguish, who has performed his penances and is endowed with full faith,—the Philosophy of Brahman’—Having thus made up their mind, they said to him—“Breath is Brahman, ‘Ka’ is Brahman, ‘Kha’ is Brahman.”—(4)

Upaniṣad text:

He said—‘I understand that Breath is Brahman but I do not understand Ka and Kha’. They said—‘What is Ka is Kha, and what is Kha is Ka.—Then they taught him the Breath and also its Ākāśa.—(5)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

He—the Religious Student—said—‘I understand what has been said by you regarding Breath being Brahman; as the meaning of this term is well known; the term ‘Breath’ (Prāṇa) is well known among people as standing for that particular form of Air during the presence whereof there is life, and on the cessation of which life disappears; and it is only right that this Breath should be regarded as Brahman. Thus, the meaning of the terms being well known I understand that Breath is Brahman; I do not, however, understand ‘Ka and Kha’

Objection—“The terms Ka and Kha also are well-known as denoting pleasure and Ākāśa respectively; why then did the Student not understand them?”

Answer:—The pleasure that is denoted by the term Ka is perishable in a moment; the Ākāśa also, which is denoted by the term Kha, is something inanimate; how then could these two be Brahman (which is eternal and all-consciousness)?—This is what is in the Student’s mind; also—‘How too can your statement be wrong?’—Hence, he says ‘I do not understand’.

When the Student had said this, the Fires said to him—What we have spoken of as ‘Ka’ is what is ‘Kha’ i.e. Ākāśa; so that qualified by this Kha—Ākāśa—the pleasure— denoted by ‘Ka’—becomes differentiated from the ordinary pleasure produced by the contact of the object with the sense_:organs; just as the Lotus qualified by the blue colour becomes differentiated from the Red and other lotuses.—Similarly, what we have spoken of as ‘Kha’—Ākāśa—you should know as ‘Ka’—Happiness; so that being qualified by happiness, the Kha—Ākāśa—becomes differentiated from the purely physical Ākāśa. which is insensate; this differentiation also being like that of the Blue Lotus. Thus what is meant is the Pleasure centred in Ākāśa, not the ordinary pleasure,—and also the Ākāśa as the centre of happiness, not the physical Ākāśa.

Objection.—“If it is desired to qualify Ākāśa by pleasure, let there be'only one of the two qualifying assertions;—‘what is Ka is Kha’ is entirely superfluous; or it may be the other way about (Both assertions are not needed).”

Answer:—We have already explained that what is meant to be done is to differentiate both Happiness and Ākāśa (here said to be Brahman) from the ordinary worldly Happiness and Ākāśa.

“But when Ākāśa has been qualified and differentiated by Happiness, then by this also the differentiation of both becomes implied.”

True; but what is prescribed here is that this Ākāśa as qualified by Happiness should be meditated upon (as Brahman),—and not the meditation of Happiness as the differentiating quality of Ākāśa; because the only purpose served by the mention of the qualification is to restrict the scope of what it qualifies.—Thus Happiness also is qualified by Kha—Ākāśa—as something to be meditated upon (as Brahman).

“How do you get at this conclusion?”.

This follows from the connection of the term ‘Ka’ with the term ‘Brahman’,—in the text ‘Ka is Brahman. In fact, if what the fires intended to convey were the idea that Kha qualified by Happiness should be meditated upon; then they would, at the very first, have declared that ‘Ka-Kha is Brahman’; and yet this is not what they did declare, what they did declare was that ‘Ka is Brahman, and Kha is Brahman’; consequently, for removing the confusion in the mind of the Student, it was only right to declare that Ka (Happiness) and Kha (Ākāśa) stand to each other in the mutual relation of the qualifier and the qualified,—each, in turn, qualified by the other; and this is what is declared in the sentence—‘what is Ka is Kha’ etc., etc.

The Text now declares, for our benefit, what the fires taught to the Religious Student:—They taught him—the Religious Student,—Breath (Prāṇa) and its Ākāśa,—i.e. the Ākāśa of Prāṇa; i.e., the Ākāśa (space) within the Heart, which is related to Prāṇa as its substratum. What the fires taught were the two Brahmans conjointly,—the first, Brahman in the form of Ākāśa qualified by Happiness—this was taught by declaring happiness to be a qualification of Ākāśa,—and the second, Brahman in the shape of Prāṇa, located in the Ākāśa and hence connected with Brahman,—(5)

End of Section (10) of Discourse IV