Section 6.3 (third khaṇḍa) (four texts)

Upaniṣad text:

Verily, of these Beings there are only three origins—Born from Egg, Born from Living Being, and Born from Roots.—(1)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

Of these Beings—endowed with life,—such as the Bird and the other living beings;—the term ‘these’ refers to Fire and the rest spoken of in the preceding section; because what the text is going to describe is the Triplication of these latter, and so long as this Triplication has not been described, they could not be spoken of directly as ‘these’— also because the term ‘Deity’ has been used with reference to Fire and the rest, in the text ‘These three Deities’ (text 3 below).—Hence (what the present text means is that) of these living beings, Birds, Animals, Trees and the rest, there are only three,—not more—origins—causes-sources.

—It is next pointed out what these origins are—(a) Born from Egg, (b) Born from Living Being,—and (c) Born from Roots.—The term ‘āṇḍaja [āṇḍajam]’ is formed from the term ‘aṇḍaja’ ‘Born from Eggs’, with the reflexive affix,—viz. Birds, etc. Birds, Serpents etc., are seen to be born of birds and serpents etc., only; that is to say, Bird is the origin of Birds, the Serpent of Serpents, and so on. Other egg-born animals are the origin of those of the same species.

Objection:—“What is born from the egg is called I Egg-born’; so that it is the Egg that should be regarded as the ‘origin how then is it that what is spoken of as the ‘origin’ (of Egg-born animals) is ‘what is born from the egg?’”

Answer:—This would be quite true if the Veda were dependent upon our wish; as a matter of fact, however, the Veda is not dependent upon anything; and as it is, it has spoken of ‘what is born from the Egg’ as the ‘origin’, and not the Egg itself. As a matter of fact, too, it is found that it is the absence of Egg-born animal,—not the absence of the Egg,—that brings about the absence of the future brood of that species. Hence, it is the Egg-born that is the ‘origin’ of Egg-born animals.

Similarly, what is born of a living being is 'born from Living Being’, that is, born of the womb, such as Man, Animal and others.

Born of Roots, ‘udbhijja’—‘udbhid’, ‘root’, is that which shoots up, viz. immobile beings (like trees etc.) and what is born of these is ‘Born from Roots’.—Or ‘Udbhid’, ‘root’, may stand for the seed-grains, and what is born from that is ‘Born of Roots’; so that the root of the immobile Being (tree etc.) is the origin of immobile beings (Vegetables).

As for such other species as ‘born of sweat’ and ‘born of heat’, these are included under the ‘Egg-born’, and

‘Root-born’ respectively.—Thus the restriction, that ‘there are only three origins becomes established.—(1)

Upaniṣad text:

This Deity conceived—‘Well, now may I, entering into these three Divinities through this Living Self (jīvātman), differentiate Name and Form.’—(2)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

This Deity,—the one that forms the subjectmatter of the Discourse,—named ‘Being’, the source of Fire, Water and Food,—conceived,—thought,—as before in the case of the assertion ‘may I become many’.—That purpose of ‘becoming many’ has not yet been accomplished; hence the Deity conceived again, accepting as its purpose the same ‘becoming many’.—“What did it conceive?”—Well, now, may I, entering into these three Divinities,—these three spoken of above as Fire, Water and Food, through this Living Self;—in speaking thus, the Being remembers its own self endowed with Life passed through which has experiences during the previous cycle of creation and which Life is still retained in memory; hence it speaks of it as ‘this living self’; and inasmuch as the text speaks of that self which carries on the act of living, what is meant is ‘entering through that which is not-different from the Being itself, being of the nature of the same unspecified Consciousness as itself;—entering the three Divinities through this,—that is, having acquired special cognitions due to the contact of the elements of Fire, Water and Food,—may I differentiate Name and Form;—that is, ‘such and such a thing bears this name and has this form’.

Objection:—“It is not right and proper that the Deity (Being) which, by itself, is not subject to birth and death, and which is omniscient, should deliberately determine to enter—and actually enter—the body, which is the receptible of experience; while it is not subject to any other control.”

Answer—True; this would be right and proper, if the Deity had determined to enter into the body for suffering painful experiences, in its own unmodified form. As a matter of fact, however, it is not so; it is clear from the clause ‘through this living self’, that it entered in the form of the Jīva (living self, the Jīvātman, Individualised Self). This ‘Living Self’, ‘Jīva’, is a mere reflection of the said Deity (the Supreme Self, Being) brought about by its contact with Intellect and other faculties and with elemental rudiments,—just like the reflection of a man standing before a mirror, or the reflection of the Sun and such bodies in water and other reflecting substances. It is the contact of this Deity,—which has potencies unthinkable and endless,—with intellect and other faculties, and the reflection thereon of Consciousness (or Intelligence),—which latter is due to the want of proper differentiation of the real positive form of the Deity—which becomes the cause of various such notions as ‘I am happy ‘I am unhappy’, ‘I am dumb-founded’ and the like. Inasmuch as the Deity enters only in the form of its reflection, be in the form of the ‘Living Self’,—it does not itself become affected by the pain and other experiences of the body;—just as the man, the Sun and other reflected things, entering into the mirror, water or other reflecting media, are not affected by the defects of these reflecting media; so the Deity also is not affected. To this effect we have the following texts—‘Just as the Sun, the Eye of all worlds, is not affected by the external defects of the Eye,—so the One Inner Self of all beings is not affected by sufferings of the external world’ (Kaṭha 5. 11.), ‘He is all-pervading and eternal, like Ākāśa’. (Kaṭha. 5. 11), and again ‘As if reflecting, as if scintillating’ (Bṛhadā. Upa. 4, 3. 7.).

Objection:—“If the ‘Living Self’ is a mere reflection, then it must be unreal, and so also must be its going to the other Regions or even to this Region.”

Answer:—This does not affect the case; what we hold is that it is, real, in so far as it is of the nature of Being. In fact, all modifications—Name and Form are real in so far as they are of the nature of ‘Being’,—in themselves, they are all unreal; as it has been declared that ‘All modification—is a mere product of words, a mere name.’ The same is the case with the ‘Living Self’ (Jīva). The maxim is well known that ‘The offering is in accordance with the Yakṣa to whom it is offered’; hence under that principle, all activities and all modifications (and products) are real only in so far as they are of the nature of ‘Being’,—and they are unreal in so far as they differ from ‘Being’. To this the logicians cannot take any objection; it can be shown that all doctrines of Duality are mutually contradictory, are mere figments of the imagination of the propounder and are hence rooted in falsity.—(2)

Upaniṣad text:

‘Of these;—May I make each one threefold’ (conceiving thus)—this Deity entered into those Divinities, through this ‘Living-Self’ and differentiated the Names and Forms.—(3)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

“Thus entering into these three Divinities, may I differentiate the hitherto undifferentiated Names and Forms which, in their own forms, are the ‘seeds’ or ‘origins’”—Having conceived thus, and also that ‘each of these three Divinities I shall make triplicate’;—the ‘triplication’ of each would mean the indicating of one of the three constituent factors as the primary and the other two as secondary factors; otherwise (if all the three constituents were equal) there would be a single common ‘triplication’, and not a distinct ‘triplication’ for each of the three. In this way, we get at the idea of a separate name for each of the three, Fire, Water and Food in such expressions as ‘this is Fire’ (in which the firy [fire?] factor would be primary,) ‘this is Water’ and ‘this is Food’; and when the idea of the separate name of each of them has been got. at,—there would be an accomplishment of the proper use of the three Divinities. Having conceived thus; this Deity (Being) having entered into these three Divinities, through the aforesaid ‘Living Self’,—like the solar orb entering into the reflecting surface,—it entered, first of all, into the Mass (Body) representing Virāṭ (the personal creator Prajāpati) and then the’ Masses (Bodies) representing the Divinities,—and then, in accordance with Its determination, it differentiated the Names and Forms:—‘Such and such is the Name of this, and such and such its Form’.—(3)

Upaniṣad text:

It made each one of these triplicate. As to how each of these three Divinities becomes triplicate,—learn that, my dear, from me.—(4)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

Each of the three Divinities, that Deity made triplicate,—by determining which, in each, is the primary and which the secondary factors. As regards the triplicate character of the ‘bodies’ of the Divinities, as consisting of fire, water and food, as duly differentiated through name and form,—that may rest for the present;—as to how, out of the external bodies,—each of these three Divinities becomes triplicate,—that learn from me, while I am expounding it; that is, clearly understand it by means of illustrations.—(4)

End of Section (3) of Discourse VI