Section 7.9 (ninth khaṇḍa) (three texts)

Upaniṣad text:

Now, Indra, before getting at the Devas, saw this difficulty—‘just as when the body is well-adorned, it becomes well-adorned,—when the body is well-dressed, it becomes well-dressed,—when the body is well-groomed, it becomes well-groomed,—so, in the same manner, when the body becomes one-eyed, it should become one-eyed,—when the body becomes crippled, it should become crippled;—and when the body perishes, it should also perish.’—(1)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

Now, Indra, before getting at the Devas;— being endowed as he was with the divine qualities of mercy and the like, he went along pondering again and again over the words of the teacher, and while so going along, he sees this difficulty—going to be set forth,—in his theory of the Self. What Prajāpati had taught him through the illustration of the water-cup,—a part of that teaching now flashed into Indra’s mind, whereby he perceived the difficulty that the Reflection is the Self.—“What difficulty?”—Just as when the body is well-adorned, it—Reflection—Self—also becomes well-adorned,—when the body is well-dressed, it becomes well-dressed,—when the body is well-groomed, it becomes well-groomed,—i.e. on the removal of hairs, and such other parts of the body, the Reflection—Self—also becomes ‘well-groomed’—i.e. free from hairs and nails and such excrescences;—so, in the same manner,—as the eye and the rest are as good parts of body as the Hairs and Nails,—when the body becomes blind on the removal of the eyes,—it—the reflection—Self—also should become blind;—when the body becomes one-eyed, it should become one-eyed the term ‘srāma’ signified one-eyed’, and as this might be included under ‘blind’, the term may be taken to stand for constantly flowing nose and Eyes;—crippled,—bands or legs cut off;—when the body has become one-eyed or crippled, the reflection Self—also should become so;—and it should also perish when the body perishes,—(1)

Upaniṣad text:

‘I see no good in this.’ Then with fuel in his hand, he came back.—Prajāpati said to them—‘Well, Indra, as you went away, satisfied at heart, with Virocana, for what purpose have you come back?’—He said—‘Revered sir, as when the body is well-adorned, it is well-adorned,—when the body is well-dressed, it is well-dressed,—when the body is well-groomed, it is well-groomed,—so also when the body is blind, it should be blind,—when the body is one-eyed, it should become one-eyed, when the body is crippled, it should be crippled; and when the body perishes, it would also perish. Therefore, I see no good in this.’—(2)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

‘For these reasons, in this—in the doctrine that the reflection is the Self, or the body is the Self,—I see no good,—I do not see that any good can come of it.’—Having thus made up his mind that the doctrine of the ‘Body—Reflection—Self’ is defective,—he, with fuel in his hands, came back,—determind to dwell as a Religious student again.—To him said Prajāpati—‘O Indra, as you Went away, satisfied at heart, with Virocana, for what purpose have you come back I’—Though knowing why he had come back, the Teacher put the question, for the purpose of bringing out Indra’s real intentions; just as he had done Before,—in the case of Sanatkumāra saying to Nārada—⁴ Come to me with what you know.’—Indra made up his intentions clear in the sentence ‘Just as etc., etc.’—And this statement was acceded to by Prajāpati in the next sentence ‘So it is.’—

Question:—“The teaching imparted by the Teacher regarding ‘the person in the eye’ being the same to both,—how was it that, while Indra understood it to mean that the Reflection of the Body was the Self, Virocana understood it to mean that the body is the Self; what was the reason for this?”

On this question, some people hold the following opinion. In the case of Indra, when he remembered the words of Prajāpati relating to the ‘Water-cup’, before he got at the Devas, the idea came to him that what the Teacher had taught was that the Reflection was the Self, and in that idea he perceived a difficulty;—such was not the case with Virocana; he understood the body itself to be the Self,—and he perceived no difficulty in this doctrine. Similarly, the fact that while Indra understood the Reflection to be the Self, Virocana understood the body itself to be the Self,—was due to the smaller or larger deficiency in their capacity of understanding Philosophy; so that the deficiency of understanding, in the case of Indra, being small,—inasmuch as he took the term ‘Seen’ as used by Prajāpati in the sentence ‘the Person seen in the Eye is the Self’, in its direct sense, (and as what is actually seen in the Eye is the Reflection) he took the teaching to mean that the Reflection in the Eye was the Self;—while the other, Virocana, rejected the direct meaning of the term seen’ and took it in its indirect sense, as standing for the source of the Reflection (seen)—in the form of the Body, and understood Prajāpati’s words to mean that ‘the Body is the Self’; and this misunderstanding was due to the deficiencies in his understanding being much larger (than in that of Indra). The idea in Virocana’s mind was somewhat like this:—‘when two pieces of cloth—one blue and the other not-blue—are seen reflected in the mirror, they say (on looking at the reflected images) that the one that is blue is costly, where what is meant to be ‘costly’ is the cloth, and not the reflection (so when Prajāpati spoke of the reflection in the Eyes, He must have meant the Body that is reflected and not the reflection.)’ In all cases, people understand the meanings of the words and expressions in accordance with the efficiency or deficiency of their own minds,—though the words used are exactly the same;—this has been exemplified in, another Vedic text where various meanings—such as (1) ‘Dāmyata’, ‘be self-controlled’, (2) ‘Datta’, ‘make gifts’, and (3) Dayadhvaṃ ‘be merciful’ have been spoken of as understood from the single letter ‘da’—(Bṛhadā. Upa. V. ii. 3.). Other accessory auxiliaries also come to function exactly in keeping with the particular man’s understanding.—(2)

Upaniṣad text:

‘So it is, O Indra’—He said,—‘I shall explain this to you again; dwell here for another thirty-two years.’—He dwelt there for another thirty-two years; then Prajāpati said to him (as follows).—(3)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

Prajāpati said—‘So it is, O Indra,—you have understood it rightly that the Reflection is not that Self which is the subject-matter of our study. This—Self—I shall explain to you again, though I had explained it before. I shall explain it again. Even though what I explained was quite intelligible to all persons free from all defects,—yet you did not understand it;—from which it follows that your powers of comprehension have been obstructed by some defects;—hence for the removal of that defect, Dwell here for another thirty-two years, (as a religious student).’— and after Indra had dwelt as a Religious student for another thirty-two years,—and hence got rid of his defect,—Prajāpati said to him (as follows)—(3)

End of Section (9) of Discourse VIII.