Section 7.8 (eighth khaṇḍa) (five texts)

Upaniṣad text:

‘Look at yourselves in a cup of water, and then what you do not understand of the Self,—tell me.’—They looked at themselves in a cup of water. Prajāpati said to them—‘What do you see?’—They said—‘Sir, we see ourselves entirely as we are, even to the hairs and nails,—a perfect replica’.—(1)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

‘In a cap of water,—In a cup filled with water, and such other receptacles,—look at yourselves,—and then, what you do not understand of the Self—tell me’.— Being thus directed, they looked at themselves in the cup of water—accordingly.—When they had done that, Prajāpati said to them—‘What do you see?’

Question:—“They had been told to come and tell Prajāpati—what they did not understand; after looking into the cup of water, they did not tell anything to Prajāpati, as to what they did not understand; and without this non-understanding and its cause having been repeated to him, Prajāpati at once put the question ‘What do you see?’—now what is the meaning of this?”

Answer:—As a matter of fact, they did not have the least suspicion as to their having not understood anything, as they had the definite conviction that the reflection was the Self that this was so is shown by the declaration later on that ‘they went out with their hearts satisfied and at peace (Text 3, below); no such peace in heart would be possible if the conviction had not been firm and certain. This is the reason why they did not say ‘we have not understood this’. And yet the teacher put the question himself—‘What do you see?’—because it would not be right to ignore the pupils who had formed wrong conclusions; in fact, in order to remove their misconception, he is going to assert later on (next sentence)—‘Having adorned yourself etc., etc.’

To Prajāpati’s question, they replied—‘Sir, we see ourselves entirely as we are, even to the hairs and nails,—an exact replica;—just as we are, with hairs and nails and other things, so do we see ourselves in the water-cup, along with the hairs and nails our exact replica’.—(1)

Upaniṣad text:

Prajāpati said to them—‘Having become well-adorned, well-dressed and well-groomed, look into the water-cup.’ Becoming well-adorned, well-dressed and well-groomed, they looked into the water-cup.— Prajāpati said to them—‘What do you see?’—(2)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

Prajāpati said to them, again—for the purpose of removing their misconception regarding the Self.—‘Having become well-adorned,—as you generally are, at home,—well-dressed,—dressed in valuable clothes,—well-groomed—with hairs cut and nails pared—look again into the water-cup.’ In this case, he did not add ‘tell me what you do not understand.’

Question:—‘How could their misconception regarding the reflection being the Self be removed by their looking into the water-cup after having become well-adorned etc., etc.?”

What is implied is that—just as the reflection in the water-cup in the second case, has been brought about by such adventitious characteristics as the ornamentation, dressing, and the rest attached to the body, so, in the former case also, the reflection was (apparently) due to the Hairs and Nails and other parts of the body, which had not been cut and which had been regarded as permanent features,—and when, on the latter occasion, the Hairs and Nails had been cut off, no reflection of these Hairs and Nails is seen; and from this analogy of the Hairs and Nails, it follows that the Body also is only an appendage liable to come and go; and from all this it becomes established that the reflection seen in the water-cup,—as also its source, the Body itself,—is not the Self; just like the ornaments and other things attached to the body which had caused the reflection in the water-cup. It is not only this; in fact, whatever—in the shape of Pleasure and Pain, Love and Hatred and Delusion etc.,—is generally regarded as one’s own, is all Not-self, because all this is adventitious, just like the Hairs and Nails.

When thus Prajāpati had cited the illustration of the ‘Ornament, dress and grooming for the purpose of removing all wrong notions,—and the pupils heard it, and did as they were told, the wrong notion that they had with regard to the reflection being the Self did not disappear. From this it would appear as if Indra and Virocana had their sense of discrimination obstructed by some fault of their own. Hence finding them still firm in their previous conception, Prajāpati said to them—‘what do you see?’—(2)

Upaniṣad text:

They said—‘Just as we are ourselves, well-adorned, well-dressed and well-groomed,—so are these also well-adorned, well-dressed and well-groomed’.—He said—‘That is the Self,—the ‘Immortal, the Fearless; that is Brahman.’—They both went away with their hearts satisfied.—(3)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

They continued to have the same idea—exactly as they had understood it in the first instance: ‘just as we are well-adorned etc. so are these reflected Selves also’,—such was the wrong notion in which they definitely persisted.—The distinguishing characteristics of the Self had been declared to be freedom from evil and the rest; and then when the two pupils came seeking for further knowledge of the qualifications of the Self,—Prajāpati directly pointed out to them the Self by the words ‘the person that is seen in the Eye’; thereupon, for the purpose of removing false notions regarding the Self, the illustration of the water-cup and the ornamentation was put forward;—though all this was done, the wrong notion that they had formed has not yet been removed by the correct notion of the Self;—hence both these persons have their powers of discrimination obstructed by some fault of their own;—having thought over all this, Prajāpati,—still keeping within his mind his own correct notion of the Self,—said ‘That is the Self,—the Immortal, the Fearless, It is

Brahman’, as before; all this he said in reference to the Self as present in His own mind, and not in reference to the Self as conceived by the pupils.

‘By this time, the two pupils had become duly educated and cultured—(1) by hearing the definition of the Self as free from evil etc., (2) by learning of.the Person in the Eye, and (3) by the reasonings declared from the example of the Water-cup;—and by pondering over my words again and again, the obstruction to their understanding having disappeared, they would, by themselves attain the true discriminative knowledge of Self’;—with this idea in his mind, Prajāpati thought that if he were to advise them to dwell again as religious students, they would be pained in their hearts; and with a view to saving from this he permitted them to depart when they were going out with the satisfaction that they had accomplished their purpose. And they both—Indra and Virocana—with their hearts satisfied with the notion that their purpose had been fulfilled;—they did not attain real peace; for if they had attained real peace, their wrong notion would have automatically disappeared;—thus they went away.—(3)

Upaniṣad text:

And Prajāpati, looking after them,—said,—‘without having perceived and without having understood this Self, they are going away; now, whoever of the two, Devas or Asuras, will accept this doctrine will be landed in trouble.’—Now, Virocana, with a satisfied heart, went out to the Asuras and preached to them this doctrine—viz.: ‘The Self alone is to be worshipped, the Self alone is to be attended upon; and it is only by worshipping the Self and attending upon the Self that one secures both regions,—this as well as that other’.—(4)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

‘When the two kings, Indra and Virocana have gone away and become addicted to them—pleasurable experiences,—they would forget what has been said to them,’—suspecting this, and being desirous of removing their troubles indirectly and yet by direct assertion,—Prajāpati,—seeing them going away at a distance, said,—in the hope that, like my declaration regarding ‘the Self being free from evil’ and etc.,—my present warning also might reach their ears:—without having perceived the Self— described above—i.e. not having realised it in their own perception (without self-realisation),—and entertaining entirely notions regarding it,—these two—Indra and Virocana—are going away;—now, whoever of the two, Devas or Asuras,—will be what?—will accept this doctrine,'—i.e. those for whom the true philosophy of the Self will be what these two have understood it to be,—those among Devas and Asuras will accept this view, entertain this notion,—“they what?”—They will be landed in trouble—be flung away from the path of prosperity,—be destroyed.

When the two kings—the king of Devas and the king of Asuras—were going away; the King of Asuras, Virocana, with a satisfied heart, went to the Asuras; and having gone to them,—preached to them—the Asuras—this doctrine—that the body is the Self,—the father has declared the body itself to be the self; hence the Self—i.e. the Body—alone is to be Worshipped—in this world,—and to be attended upon,—and it is only by worshipping the self—i.e. the Body—and attending upon it,—secures both regions,—this as well as that other; what the king means was that these two regions include all Regions and all desirable things.—(4)

Upaniṣad text:

For this reason, even to this day—if one does not give, has no faith, and does not perform sacrifices,—they say of him, ‘oh! he is Āsura (demoniacal) as such is the doctrine of the Asuras. They deck the body of the dead with food, wrappings and ornaments; and by this they think they are securing the other world.—(5)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

For this reason, the said tradition continues to this day, in the world;—if one does not give,—does not bestow gifts, who has not shared his gifts,—has no faith,— in the performance of good deeds,—and does not perform sacrifices,—to the best of his capacity,—is not in the habit of offering sacrifices,—they—the cultured people living there, —say of him—‘Oh! He is Āsura (demoniacal)’; and the reason for this lies in the fact that such is the doctrine of the Asuras,—the doctrine i.e. which is marked by absence of Faith and the like.—Those who are brought up under this doctrine, deck the body of the dead—the corpse—with food,—i.e. with perfumes, garlands and articles of food,—wrappings—clothes and other forms of coverings,—and ornaments—such as standards, flags etc.;—by this—decking of the corpse,—they think they are securing both regions—to be reached after death.

End of Section (8) of Discourse VIII.