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 7.1 (first khaṇḍa) (six texts)

Commentary Introduction (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

Though under Discourses VI and VII, it has been learnt that ‘Brahman is real, one, without a second’ and ‘the Self is all this’ free from all diversities of space, place, time and the rest,—yet, in the world, there are many persons of dull intellect, among whom the conviction is so strong to the effect that everything real is beset with diversities of space, place and the rest, that it cannot, all at once, be turned towards the Absolutely Real—and yet without understanding the real nature of Brahman, the highest purpose of men cannot be fulfilled;—hence for the benefit of the duller persons, it is necessary to convey the teaching indirectly, by indicating, in the first instance, the particular spot within the Lotus of the Heart (as the abode of the Self, the Brahman). Secondly, though the Self in its essence is the object of the single true cognition of ‘Being’ and is devoid of all qualities,—yet for the benefit of person with dull intellect has his heart so fixed upon the Highest Being possessing the highest qualities, that it is found necessary to speak of such qualities belonging to him as ‘being of unfailing wish’ and so forth.—Thirdly, though in the case of persons who have realised Brahman, the avoidance of such objects of sense-gratification as the woman and the like comes by itself,—yet, it is not easy to divert, all at once, the longing for objects of sensegratification that has grown through long continued indulgence extending over several births; hence, it is found necessary to enjoin such detailed means of accomplishing the end as ‘celibacy’ and the like (that ‘Brahmacharya’ in the present context stands for Celibacy is clear from what Saṅkarācārya himself says under VIII. iv. 3 below, when the term is explained as ‘renunciation of desire for women’)—Fourthly, though in the case of persons who have realised the unity of Self, there can be no goer or going or place to go to (all which involve diversity; consequently, what happens is that, on the disappearance of the rootcause of that particular factor of Nescience,—they lapse (on death) into their own Self,—just as the lightning lapses into the Ākāśa, as Air lapses into itself as soon as it is manifested, or as the Fire lapses into itself, when the fuel has been entirely burnt up; and yet, there are many persons whose minds are still beset with such diversities as the goer, the going and the place to go to,—and who are still given to worshipping (or meditating upon) Brahman as abiding within the Heart and as endowed with qualities; and for the benefit of these persons, it has to be pointed out that (on death) they pass out (of the body) by an Artery in the Head. It is for all these purposes that the Eighth Discourse is proceeded with. The Absolutely True Brahman, Being, one, without a second, regarded by persons of dull intellect as non-existent; hence, what the Smṛti (text) thinks is that (though the teaching now going to be imparted is not the absolutely right one,—yet even through such wrong teaching) let these (ignorant) persons be brought on to the right Path, we shall, gradually, lead them up to the knowledge of the Absolutely True also.

Upaniṣad text:

Now, in this city of Brahman, there is a small Palace in the shape of the white Lotus; lies the small inner Ākāśa;—That which lies in that should be sought after and should be understood.—(1)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

Now,—after this,—what is going to be described is the small Palace like the white Lotus,—which appears like the white Lotus; it is as if it were a palace, guarded as it is (like a palace) by gate-keepers and others. In this city of Brahman,—the city of the Supreme Brahman; just as the king, who has many subjects under him, has his city,—so has the Brahman His city, equipped with the several sense-organs, mind and intelligence devoted to the service of their Master;—in the City, there is the palace of the king,—so here in Brahman’s city, the Body, there is a small Palace,—which is, the locus of the apprehension of Brahman (that is, it is the place where Brahman is cognised); just as Viṣṇu is cognised in the piece of Black stone.—In this body, which is an off-shoot of one of his products, Brahman named ‘Being’, enters in the form of the Living Self,—for the purpose of differentiating Names and Forms;—as has been explained above. For this reason it is in this Palace of the White Lotus in the Heart that Brahman is apprehended by persons who have withdrawn their organs (from activity), who are no longer attached to external things, and who are specially equipped with means of success as Celibacy and Truth, and who go on meditating upon Brahman as endowed with the qualities going to be described. Such is the sense of what is taught in the present context.

There is a small—smaller than the said Palace—

In the small Palace, there it lies a small—smaller; the Palace itself being small, what lies within it must be smaller than the Palace;—Inner Ākāśa;—i.e. Brahman named Ākāśa’; it is going to be declared later on that ‘Ākāśa is His name’; and the reason for this lies in the fact that like Ākāśa, Brahman is bodiless, extremely subtle and all—pervading. What lies within—inside—that Ākāśa should be sought after,—that and that alone should be understood—with particular care; that is,it should be directly perceived after careful search through such means as going to a teacher, listening to him and so on.—(1)

Upaniṣad text:

If they should say to him—‘In this city of Brahman there is the Small Palace like the White Lotus,—and there lies the smaller Inner Ākāśa,—what is it that lies within it which should be sought after and should be understood?’,—he should say in reply (as follows).—(2)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

When the Teacher has said above (in text 1),—if the Disciples should say—urge the argument—what argument?—this—‘in this city of Brahman,—which is limited in extent,—there is the Smaller Palace like the White Lotus,—and within that lies the still smaller Inner Ākāśa;—what could lie within the Palace of the White Lotus? Only that which should occupy a smaller space than that;—that smaller Inner Ākāśa,—what is it that lies within it, by seeking after which, or by understanding which, what reward would accrue to the Seeker? Hence, there is no use for that which has been declared to be as to be sought after or understood.’—When the Disciple has urged this argument, the teacher should say in reply (as follows)—says the Vedic Text.—(2)

Upaniṣad text:

As large as is this Ākāśa, so large is that Ākāśa, in the Heart. Both Heaven and Earth are contained within it; both fire and air, both the sun and the moon, the lightning and the stars, and whatever there is in this world, and also what is not,—all that is contained within it.—(3)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

Listen, please.—You say that “Ākāśa within the White Lotus being small, what is contained therein must be smaller than that”.—This is not right; when I said that the ‘Inner Ākāśa within is smaller’, I did not mean that the Ākāśa within the White Lotus was ‘smaller’ than the White Lotus; what I meant was that the White.Lotus is small, and in keeping with it, the inner organ residing within that Lotus is limited in scope by the Ākāśa in the Lotus; and when that internal has become purified by the withdrawal of the organs, the Yogin (Mystic) perceives therein Brahman, pure, appearing like the Light of Consciousness and of the same size as the said inner organ,—just as the reflected image of a real substance is seen in clear water or other reflecting substances;—this is what I meant when I said that therein lies the smaller Inner Ākāśa; all this being due to the limitation imposed by the internal organ. In reality, by itself,—as large—in size—as is this Material (Elemental) Ākāśa is known to be,—so large is that Ākāśa in the Heart,—in which, I said, was what was to be sought after and understood. By the phrase ‘so large’ it is not meant that it is really of the same size as Ākāśa, what is meant is to cite an illustration and no nearer parallel to Brahman could be found.

Question:—“But why should Brahman not be understood as really of the same size as Ākāśa?

Answer—Because of such Vedic texts as—‘By whom is covered the Ākāśa, the Heaven and the Earth’ (Mahanārāyaṇa Upa. 1.3.);—‘From that Self was produced Ākāśa (Taitti. Upa. 2. 1. 1.)—‘In this Imperishable Entity O Gārgī, does Ākāśa subsist’ etc., etc. Further, within this—Brahman-Ākāśa, as conditioned by the limitations of the intellect,—are contained both Heaven and Earth, i.e. these are properly contained; it has been said before that ‘as the spokes are fastened to the nave etc.’—so also are contained therein both Fire and Air, etc., as before. Whatever there is in this world—as related to the said conditioned Embodied Self,—and so also what is not—known to be so related to it,—what is destroyed and what is yet to come both are spoken of as ‘is not’.—this is what the phrase ‘is not’ in the text stands for,—and not what is absolutely non-existent; as for an absolutely non-entity it would not be possible to be ‘contained’ in the Ākāśa of the Heart—(3)

Upaniṣad text:

If they should say to him—“If all this is contained in this City of Brahman, all beings and all desires,—then, when decrepitude overtakes it, or when it perishes, what is left of it?”—(4)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

When he has said above, if the disciples should say to the teacher as follows:—“If in the above-mentioned City of Brahman,—i.e. in the Inner Ākāśa circumscribed by the City of Brahman,—is contained all this, all beings and all desires,—The teacher has not spoken of the Desires why then should the disciples mention it?—There is nothing wrong in this; in the expression ‘whatever is in this and what is not used by the teacher (in the preceding text) has included the Desires also; and also the Desires are already included under the term ‘all’. When—at which time,—this body, called ‘the City of Brahman is overtaken by decrepitude—marked by grey hairs and shrunken skin,—or old age,—or, on being torn or maimed by weapons, it perishes,—decays, is destroyed,—what is left of it I What is meant is that, just as on the destruction of jar, the milk, curds and oils contained in the jar also become destroyed,—so when the body is destroyed, all that is contained in the body should also, gradually one after the other, become destroyed;—this destruction, thus, having come about, what is left of it,—of what has been described above, what is there left? The sense is that nothing is left.” (4)

Upaniṣad text:

He should say—‘By the decrepitude of this (body), that does not age; by the death of this, That  is not killed; That is the true Brahman-City; in this are all desires contained. This is the Self, free from evil, free from decrepitude, free from death, free from sorrow, free from hunger and thirst, with true desires and true volitions. As in this world, the subject-people follow as they are ordered and accordingly live upon that country, that province and that piece of cultivated land, which they desire.—(5)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

Being thus urged by his disciples, he—the teacher—should say (as follows) removing their misconception.—“How?”—By the decrepitude of this Body—That—the above—described Brahman called the ‘Inner Ākāśa’, wherein all is contained,—does not age,—i.e. it does not become changed (decay); nor by the death of this—caused by the stroke of weapons,—is that killed; Ākāśa is not affected (by any strokes of weapons),—what to say then of Brahman which is still subtler, without sound, without touch, is not affected by the defects of the body or the sense-organs.

It was necessary to explain here why Brahman in the Body is not affected by the defects of the Body and the sense-organs; but it is not explained here, as it would make a break in the continuity of the present Exposition; we shall explain it with suitable reasons, later on, under the story relating to Indra and Virocana.

That is the true—not unreal—Brahman City;—hence the term ‘Brahmapura [brahmapuram] stands for Brahman itself as the City that ‘Brahmapura [brahmapuram]’ ‘City of Brahman’, which is called the ‘Body’, only in so far as it characterises the Brahman therein, and it is unreal,—as declared in the Vedic text ‘all modification is only a product of words, a mere name’;—though the sprout of the body, which, as a product, is unreal, yet, as it is in the body that Brahman is perceived, it is called the ‘City of Brahman’, in the practical (not absolutely real) sense; the real ‘Brahman-city’ is Brahman Itself; as it is this that forms the basis of all practical usage.—For this reason, in this—in the Brahman-city characterised by the White Lotus—which is your own self,—all desires,—all that are wished for, by you, in the external world—are contained. That is to say, on account of this, when you are going to employ the means for attaining that Brahman you should give up all desire for external things.

This is the Self,—the real Self of you all. And now listen to what Its character is:—It is free from evil,—One in whom all ‘evil’, in the shape of Merit and Demerit has been destroyed,—free from decrepitude,—whose decrepitude has;passed off,—free from death.—“This has already been asserted before—It is not killed by the death of the body; why is it asserted again?”—

It is reiterated with a view to the possibility of the idea being entertained that ‘though It is not affected by the decrepitude and death of the Body, It may be subject to them in other ways.’—It is free from sorrow,—all sorrow disappeared; ‘sorrow’ is the mental suffering caused by separation from what is desirable;—it is free from hunger— all desire for food gone,—‘freefrom thirst’,—all desire for drinking gone.—“By the assertion of freedom from evil all else,—from decrepitude down to sorrow,—becomes precluded, by the preclusion of their cause (in the shape of evil), decrepitude and the rest being the effects of ‘evil’. Or, the denial of decrepitude and the rest would imply that there are no effects produced by Merit and Demerit, which thus, even though present, would be as good as non-existent; so that the denial of these separately (in the form of ‘evil’) would be superfluous.”—True, it would be so; yet, it might be thought that—‘just as, even though god is free from such pleasures as are due to Merit, yet He has that bliss which is in His very nature,—as declared in the text Brahman is Consciousness and Bliss similarly, even though He is free from such decrepitude etc., as are due to demerit, yet the pain due to such decrepitude etc., might be there in His very nature.’—And for getting rid of such an idea, to deny Decrepitude and the rest, even apart from Merit and Demerit.—The mention of ‘Decrepitude’ and the rest stands for all kinds of pain; as the number of Pains due to Sin is endless; it would be impossible to deny each of them singly,—hence, for the denying of all sorts of pain, it is only right that ‘freedom from evil’ itself should have been mentioned (as the source of all kinds of pain).

He is with true desires,—i.e. all His desires are infallible; the desires of worldly people are ‘not true, they are not always fulfilled but the desires of God are the contrary of that, they are infalliable;—similarly, His Volitions, arising out of those desires, are also true; in the case of God, both desires and volitions are due to the limitations of Pure Sattva (the altitude of Goodness);—just like the term ‘Citragu’ [‘One possessing cows of variegated colours, where the variegated colour does not exist in any of the cows, yet the phrase is used on the basis of the various colour of individual cows ],—and they do not really subsist in God Himself, because it has been declared that He can be spoken of only through negations—‘not this, not that’.—It is the Self, of this said character that should be learnt by persons desiring ‘self-sovereignty’ from Teachers and from: Scriptures, as the one object of self-realisation.

“If this Self is not known, what would be the harm”?

Listen to the harm that I am to explain by means of an illustration:—‘As in this world, subject-people follow as they are ordered; the common people, knowing that some one else is their master, follow as they are ordered by him—what—they accordingly live upon that country and upon that piece of cultivated land which they desire,—accordance with their own intelligence,—and they live upon that same country. This example illustrates the harm that accrues to one through not being self-dependent, and being dependent upon the experiences that follow from his merit.—(5)

Upaniṣad text:

And just as in this world, the Region won by Action perishes, so also does perish, in the other world, the Region won by righteous deeds. Those who go from here without having understood the Self and these true desires,—for them, in all regions, there is no freedom to do what they wish; while those who go from here after having understood the Self and the true desires, become free, in all regions, to do what they wish.—(6)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

Another example of the perishability (of all things but the Self); Just as in the world etc., etc.,—just as in this world, for the subject-people who follow the orders of their masters, the Region won by service and other acts, having its enjoyment dependent upon others,—perishes— comes to an end;—the text next proceeds to the other factor of the illustration.—So also does perish the Region Won by righteous deeds,—like the performance of the Agnihotra,—having its experiences dependent upon others.

The text next points out the person on whom befall the said undesirable results;—those who etc.—In this world, those who, quite capable of, and entitled to, both Knowledge and Action,—without understanding—without realising in their own consciousness,—the Self—as described above, through the teachings of the Scriptures and Teachers,—go from here,—depart from this present body,—as also those who, without understanding the above-mentioned true desires—i.e. such desires as arise from true volitions, in the Self,—go from’here,—for all such people, in all regions, there is no freedom to do as they wish,—i.e. they have no independence, being like subject-people—subservient to the orders of their king. While those in this world—others—who, go after having understood—realised in their own consciousness,—through the teachings of the scriptures and teachers,—the Self, as also the true desires,—as described above,—for them, in all regions there is freedom to do what they wish;—just as there is in this world for the king of the whole world.—(6)

End of Section (1) of Discourse VIII.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: