The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
The Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (with the Commentary of Śaṅkarācārya)
Section V - Manifestations of Prajapati
यत्सप्तान्नानि मेधया तपसाजनयत्पिता ।
एकमस्य साधारणम्, द्वे देवानभाजयत् ॥
त्रीण्यात्मनेऽकुरुत, पशुभ्य एकं प्रायच्छत् ।
तस्मिन्सर्वम् प्रतिष्ठितम् यच्च प्राणिति यच्च न ॥
कस्मात्तानि न क्षीयन्तेऽद्यमानानि सर्वदा ।
यो वैतामक्षितिम् वेद सोऽन्नमत्ति प्रतीकेन ॥
स देवानपिगच्छति, स ऊर्जमुपजीवति ॥
इति श्लोकाः ॥ १ ॥
yatsaptānnāni medhayā tapasājanayatpitā |
ekamasya sādhāraṇam, dve devānabhājayat ||
trīṇyātmane'kuruta, paśubhya ekaṃ prāyacchat |
tasminsarvam pratiṣṭhitam yacca prāṇiti yacca na ||
kasmāttāni na kṣīyante'dyamānāni sarvadā |
yo vaitāmakṣitim veda so'nnamatti pratīkena ||
sa devānapigacchati, sa ūrjamupajīvati ||
iti ślokāḥ || 1 ||
1. That the father produced seven kinds of food through meditation and rites (I shall disclose). One is common to all eaters. Two he apportioned to the gods. Three he designed for himself. And one he gave to the animals. On it rests everything—what lives and what does not. Why are they not exhausted, although they are always being eaten? He who knows this cause of their permanence eats food with Pratīka (pre-eminence). He attains (identity with) the gods and lives on nectar. These are the verses.
Ignorance has been discussed. It has been said in that connection that an ignorant man worships another god, thinking he is different from himself, and that prompted by desire, he, identifying himself with a particular caste and order of life and being regulated by a sense of duty, performs rites such as making offerings in the ñre, which help the gods and others and make him an object of enjoyment to them. And as all beings by their rites individually projected him as their object of enjoyment, so did he by his performance of rites with five factors, such as making offerings in the fire, project all beings as well as the whole universe as his objects of enjoyment. Thus everyone according to his meditation and rites is both the enjoyer and the object of. enjoyment of the whole universe. That is to say, everyone is alternately the cause as well as the effect of everyone else. This we shall describe in the section on knowledge, the meditation on things mutually helpful (II. v.), showing, as a step to the realisation of the unity of the self, how everything is the effect of everything else and helpful to it. The universe which the ignorant man in question projected as his object of enjoyment through his meditation and rites with material ends having five factors, such as making offerings in the fire, being divided in its entirety into seven parts as causes and effects, is called the seven kinds of food, being an object of enjoyment. Hence he is the father of these different kinds of food. These are the verses, Mantras describing in brief these varieties of food together with their uses, and are called Ślokas for that reason.
‘यत्सप्तान्नानि मेधया तपसाजनयत्पिता’ इति मेधया हि तपसाजनयत्पिता । ‘एकमस्य साधारणम्’ इतीदमेवास्य तत् साधारणमन्नम् यदिदमद्यते । स य एतदुपास्ते न स पाप्मनो व्यावर्तते, मिश्रं ह्येतत् । ‘द्वे देवानभाजयत्’ इति हुतं च प्रहुतं च, तस्माद्देवेभ्यो जुह्वति च प्र च जुह्वति; अथो आहुर्दर्शपूर्णमासाविति । तस्मान्नेष्टियाजुकः स्यात् । ‘पशुभ्य एकं प्रायच्छत्’ इति तत्पयः । पयो ह्येवाग्रे मनुष्याश्च पशवश्चोपजीवन्ति; तस्मात् कुमारं जातं घृतं वै वाग्रे प्रतिलेहयन्ति, स्तनं वानुधापयन्ति; अथ वत्सम् जातमाहुरतृणाद इति । ‘तस्मिन् सर्वं प्रतिष्ठितम् यच्च प्राणिति यच्च न’ इति पयसि हीदं सर्वम् प्रतिष्ठितम्, यच्च प्राणिति यच्च न । तद्यदिदमाहुः, संवत्सरं पयसा जुह्वदप पुनर्मृत्युं जयतीति, न तथा विद्यात्; यदहरेव जुहोति, तदहः पुनर्मृत्युमपजयत्येवं विद्वान्, सर्वं हि देवेभ्योऽन्नाद्यम् प्रयच्छति । ‘कस्मात्तानि न क्षीयन्तेऽद्यमानानि सर्वदा’ इति पुरुषो वा अक्षितिः, स हीदमन्नं पुनः पुनर् जनयते । ‘यो वैतामक्षितिं वेद’ इति पुरुषो वा अक्षितिः, स हीदमन्नं धिया धिया जनयते कर्मभिः; यद्धैतन्न कुर्यात्क्षीयेत ह; ‘सोऽन्नमत्ति प्रतीकेन’ इति मुखम् प्रतीकम्, मुखेनेत्येतत् । ‘स देवानपिगच्छति, स ऊर्जमुपजीवति’ इति प्रशंसा ॥ २ ॥
'yatsaptānnāni medhayā tapasājanayatpitā’ iti medhayā hi tapasājanayatpitā | ‘ekamasya sādhāraṇam’ itīdamevāsya tat sādhāraṇamannam yadidamadyate | sa ya etadupāste na sa pāpmano vyāvartate, miśraṃ hyetat | ‘dve devānabhājayat’ iti hutaṃ ca prahutaṃ ca, tasmāddevebhyo juhvati ca pra ca juhvati; atho āhurdarśapūrṇamāsāviti | tasmānneṣṭiyājukaḥ syāt | ‘paśubhya ekaṃ prāyacchat’ iti tatpayaḥ | payo hyevāgre manuṣyāśca paśavaścopajīvanti; tasmāt kumāraṃ jātaṃ ghṛtaṃ vai vāgre pratilehayanti, stanaṃ vānudhāpayanti; atha vatsam jātamāhuratṛṇāda iti | ‘tasmin sarvaṃ pratiṣṭhitam yacca prāṇiti yacca na’ iti payasi hīdaṃ sarvam pratiṣṭhitam, yacca prāṇiti yacca na | tadyadidamāhuḥ, saṃvatsaraṃ payasā juhvadapa punarmṛtyuṃ jayatīti, na tathā vidyāt; yadahareva juhoti, tadahaḥ punarmṛtyumapajayatyevaṃ vidvān, sarvaṃ hi devebhyo'nnādyam prayacchati | ‘kasmāttāni na kṣīyante'dyamānāni sarvadā’ iti puruṣo vā akṣitiḥ, sa hīdamannaṃ punaḥ punar janayate | ‘yo vaitāmakṣitiṃ veda’ iti puruṣo vā akṣitiḥ, sa hīdamannaṃ dhiyā dhiyā janayate karmabhiḥ; yaddhaitanna kuryātkṣīyeta ha; ‘so'nnamatti pratīkena’ iti mukham pratīkam, mukhenetyetat | ‘sa devānapigacchati, sa ūrjamupajīvati’ iti praśaṃsā || 2 ||
2. ‘That the father produced seven kinds of food through meditation and rites’ means that the father indeed produced them through meditation and rites. ‘One is common to all eaters' means, this food that is eaten is the common food of all eaters. He who adores (monopolises) this food is never free from evil, for this is general food. ‘Two he apportioned to the gods,’ means making oblations in the fire, and offering presents otherwise to the gods. Therefore people perform both these. Some, however, say, those two are the new and full moon sacrifices. Therefore one should not be engrossed with sacrifices for material ends. ‘One he gave to the animals’—it is milk. For men and animals first live on milk alone. Therefore they first make a new-born babe lick clarified butter or suckle it. And they speak of a new-born calf as not yet eatrgg grass. ‘On it rests everything— what lives and what does not' means that on milk indeed rests all this that lives and that does not. It is said that by making offerings of milk in the fire for a year one conquers further death. One should not think like that. He who knows as above conquers further death the very day he makes that offering, for he offers all eatable food to the gods. ‘Why are they not exhausted, although they are always being eaten?’—means that the being (eater) is indeed the cause of their permanence, for he produces this food again and again. ‘He who knows this cause of their permanence’ means that the being (eater) is indeed the cause of their permanence, for he produces this food through his meditation for the time being and rites. If he does not do this, it will be exhausted. ‘He eats food with Pratīka’ ‘Pratīka' means pre-eminence; hence the meaning is, pre-eminently. ‘He attains the gods and lives on nectar' is a eulogy.
That the father produced seven kinds of food through meditation and rites: ‘Yat’ (that) is an adverb modifying the verb ‘produced.’ The words ‘Medhā’ and ‘Tapas’ here mean meditation and rites respectively, for these are the topic, and the ordinary meanings of the words ‘Medhā’ and ‘Tapas’ (intelligence and austerity) are out of place. For rites with five factors, viz. the wife and so forth, were described, and just after that, meditation, referred to by the words, ‘He who knows it as such,’ etc. (I. iv. 17). Therefore the familiar meanings of the two words ‘Medhā’ and ‘Tapas’ must not be supposed here. Hence the meaning of the sentence is: ‘The seven kinds of food which the father produced through his meditation and rites, I shall disclose.’ The last words should be supplied to complete the sentence. In the Vēdâs the meaning of the Mantras, being hidden, is generally difficult to understand, hence the Brāhmaṇa (this text) proceeds to explain them. Now what is the meaning of ‘That the father produced seven kinds of food through meditation and rites’? This is being answered. The text explains the sentence only by the use of the particle ‘hi’ (indeed) signifying a well-known fact. That is to say, the meaning of this Mantra is well known. The words of the Mantra, ‘That the father produced,' being of the form of a restatement, it also refers to something well known. Hence the Brāhmaṇa boldly says: The father indeed produced them through meditation and rites.
Objection: How is this meaning well known?
Reply: In the first place it is evident that the ignorant man is the father of the means, beginning with the wife and ending with the rites, whereby the worlds are achieved as the result, and it has also been stated in the passage, ‘Let me have a wife,’ etc. (I. iv. 17). There it has been said that meditation, which is divine wealth, rites and a son are the means whereby the father projects the worlds which are the results. And what will be stated later on (I. v. 16) is also well known. Hence it is right to say, ‘The father indeed produced them through meditation and rites.’ Moreover, it is well known in life that desire is concerning results. And the wife and so forth have been stated to be objects of desire in the passage, ‘This much indeed is desire’ (I. iv. 17). There can be no desire in the subject-matter of the knowledge of Brahman (liberation), for it is the oneness of everything. Hence it is implied that one’s natural thoughts and actions, which are not according to the scriptures, of course lead to a projection of the relative universe (not liberation). This is also proved by the fact that the evil results ending in identity with stationary objects, are due to such thoughts and actions. But the text seeks to bring out that relation of end and means among objects which is according to the scriptures, for it is sought to inculcate an aversion to them with a view to enjoining the knowledge of Brahman. For since this entire gross and subtle universe is impure, transitory, consisting of ends and means, painful and within the category of ignorance, one gets disgusted with it, and for such a one the knowledge of Brahman has to be introduced.
Now the different uses of the varieties of food are being stated: One is common to all eaters, is the wording of the Mantra. Its explanation is given by the words: This food is the common food of all eaters. What is it? This that is eaten by all beings daily. The father, after producing the different kinds of food, designed this to be the common food of all eaters. He who adores or is devoted to this common food, which being eaten sustains the life of all living beings—adoration, as we see in life, means devotion, as when we say, ‘One adores a teacher,’ ‘One adores a king,’ etc.; hence the meaning is: who is chiefly concerned with enjoying food to prolong his existence, instead of performing rites to store (good) unseen results—such a man is never free from evil. Compare the Vedic Mantra, ‘(If an ignorant man) obtains food that is useless (to the gods, it is veritably his death)’ (Ṛ. X. cxvii. 6). And the Smṛtis, ‘One must not cook only for oneself’ (Mbh. XII. ccxlix. 5), ‘He who eats without offering to the gods is a thief’ (G. III. 12), ‘The killer of a noble Brāhmaṇa wipes (his sin) in the man who eats his food,’ and so on (M. VIII. 317). Why is he not free from evil? For this food which is eaten by all beings is general food, the common property of all. And just because it is the food of all, any morsel that is put into the mouth is seen to be painful to others, for everyone eagerly expects that it will be his. Therefore it is impossible even to eat without causing pain to others. The Smṛti too says, ‘Since the sins of men (abide in food, it is a greater sin not to share it with others).’
Some say that it refers to the food called Vaiśva-deva, which is daily offered (in the fire) by householders for the beasts etc. This is wrong, for this particular food is not observed to be common to all eaters like that which is eaten by all creatures. Nor does the specification, ‘This that is eaten,’ agree with it. Besides, as this food known as Vaiśvadeva is included in that eaten by all creatures, the latter kind of food, which is also eaten by outcasts, dogs, etc., should be understood, for we see that there is this kind of food over and above that known as Vaiśvadeva. With regard to it the specification, ‘This that is eaten,’ is appropriate. If the words 'common to all eaters’ do not mean this food, it will give rise to a suspicion that it was not produced and apportioned by the father. But there is unanimity on the point that all kinds of food were produced and apportioned by him. Besides it is not right that one performing the scriptural rite called Vaiśvadeva should not be free from evils. And it has not been forbidden. Nor is it a naturally hateful type of work like fishing, for instance, for decent people practise it, and the Śruti says that sin accrues from its non-performance. But in the other case there is the possibility of sin, for the Vedic Mantra says, ‘I eat that person as food who eats food (without giving part of it to others)’ (Tai. III. x. 6).
Two he apportioned to the gods, is the wording of the Mantra. Which are the two kinds of food that he produced and apportioned to the gods? Making oblations in the fire, and offering presents otherwise to the gods after finishing the former. Because the father distributed these two kinds of food to the gods, therefore to this day householders at the proper time perform both these, make oblations in the fire, thinking that they are offering that food to the gods, and after that offer them presents. Some, however, say that the two kinds of food the father gave to the gods are not the above two offerings, but the new and full moon sacrifices. The first view holds that the above two offerings are meant, for the Śruti mentions both (food and offering) as two, and those offerings are very well known. (This is rebutted as follows:) Although the number is all right with regard to those two offerings, still the fact that the new and full moon sacrifices —which too are mentioned by the Śruti—are the food of the gods, is better known, being revealed by the Mantras. Besides, when the choice lies between a principal and a subordinate object (denoted by the same word), the preference goes to the former. Now the new and full moon sacrifices are more important than the above two offerings. Hence it is proper to conclude that they alone are meant by the words, ‘Two he apportioned to the gods.’ Because these two kinds of food, the new and full moon sacrifices, were set apart by the father for the gods, therefore, to keep them intact for the gods, one should not be engrossed with sacrifices for material ends. The word ‘Iṣṭi’ here means ‘Kāmyeṣṭi,’ sacrifices with material ends. This is well known from the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (I. iii. 5. 10). From the use of a suffix denoting habit we understand that one must not be primarily engrossed with the performance of these sacrifices with material ends.
One he gave to the animals. What is that one food which the father gave to the animals? It is milk. How are we to know that the animals are the owners of it? This is being explained: For men and animals first live on milk alone. It must be their food, for how else would they systematically live on that first? How do they live on it first? Because men and animals to this day live on that food, just as the father apportioned it in the beginning. Therefore men of the upper three castes make a new-born babe lick clarified butter, in contact with gold, in the post-natal ceremony, or, i.e. afterwards, suckle it. The other castes (who do not have this ceremony) do whichever is practicable. In the case of animals other than men, they only suckle the young one. And they speak of of a new-born calf, when somebody asks them how old it is, as not yet eating grass, i.e. very young—still living on milk. Whether they first take clarified butter in the post-natal and other ceremonies, or whether others drink milk, in either case they drink but milk, for clarified butter, being a modification of milk, is also milk.
Why is the food of animals, which is the seventh in order, explained as the fourth? Because it is a means of rites. Rites such as the Agnihotra are performed with the help of milk. And these rites, which depend on wealth, are the means of the three kinds of food to be presently mentioned, which are the results —as the two kinds of food, the new and full moon sacrifices mentioned above. Hence, falling under the category of rites, it is explained together with them. Moreover, since both (they and it) are equally means, mere order should give precedence to the natural sequence due to sense. Besides, this way of explaining facilitates understanding. The different kinds of food can thus be easily explained without a break, and their meaning too will be easily grasped. What is the meaning of, On it rests everything—what lives and what does not? That on milk indeed, the food of animals, rests all this, the whole universe in its threefold division according to the body, the elements and the gods— that lives, the animate kingdom, and that does not live, stationary objects such as hills. The word ‘indeed,’ signifying something well-known, furnishes the explanation. How is the substance called milk the support of everything? Because it is the cause. And it is a cause in that it is an integral part of rites such as the Agnihotra. That the whole universe is the result of the oblations offered in the Agnihotra and other rites, is proved by hundreds of Śruti and Smṛti texts. Hence it is quite proper to explain the Mantra by the use of the word ‘indeed.’
It is said in some other Brāhmaṇas that by making offerings of milk in the fire for a year one conquers further death. The reference is to the following: In a year three hundred and sixty oblations are offered (counting morning and evening oblations as one). That accounts for double the number (splitting each into two). The bricks called Yājuṣmatī, used in making the altar for the Agnihotra, being also of that number, the oblations are looked upon as these bricks, and so also are the days of the year. Through this meditation based on resemblance people attain identity with Fire, the Prajāpati called the Year. By offering oblations for a year in this way one conquers further death, i.e. is born after death among the gods, no more to die. Thus do the Brāhmaṇa texts run. One should not think like that. He who knoivs as stated above, that everything rests on milk, being the result of the oblations of milk, conquers further death the very day he makes that offering —he has not to wait for a year, but attains identity with the universe in one day. This is expressed by the text, ‘Conquers further death,' i.e. the sage dying once or getting rid of the body, is identified with the universe/ and does not take on another limited body to make further death possible. What is the reason of his conquering further death by attaining identity with the univferse? This is being answered: For he offers all eatable food to all the gods by means of the morning and evening oblations. Therefore it is proper that he, by making himself one with the oblations and attaining identity with all the gods as their food—being the sum total of them—does not die any more. This too has been stated in another Brāhmaṇa: 'Brahman, the self-born (a man seeking identity with Hiraṇyagarbha) performed rites. He reflected, “Rites do not produce eternal results. Well, let me offer myself in all beings (as in a fire) and all beings in me.” Offering himself in all beings and all beings in himself, he attained the highest place among all beings, independence and absolute rulership’ (Ś. XIII. vii. i. i).
Why are they not exhausted, although they are awlays, continuously, being eaten? Since the time when the father producing the seven kinds of food distributed them to different groups of eaters, they have been eating those foods, for they live on them. And they ought to be exhausted, since everything that is made must wear out. But they are not dwindling, for we see the universe remains intact. So there must be a cause for their permanence. Hence the question, ‘Why are they not exhausted?’ It is answered as follows: The being is indeed the cause of their permanence. Just as in the beginning the father was the producer of the different kinds of food through his meditation and rites with five factors such as the wife, and their eater too, so those to whom ho gave the foods, although they are their eaters, are their fathers as well, for they produce them through their meditation and rites. This is expressed as follows: The being who eats the foods is indeed the cause of their permanence. How? This is being explathed: For he produces this food of seven kinds that is eaten, consisting of the body and organs, actions and results, again and again through his meditation for the time being and rites, î.e. the efforts of his speech, mind and body. If he does not do this, not produce for a moment the seven kinds of food mentioned above through his meditation and rites, it would be exhausted, or finished, being continuously eaten. Therefore just as the being is continuously eating the foods, he is also creating them according to his meditation and rites. Hence the being is the cause of their permanence by continuously creating them. That is to say, for this reason the foods are not exhausted although they are being eaten. Therefore the whole universe consisting of a series of meditations and rites, means and ends, actions and results—although, being held together by a stream of work and impressions of innumerable beings in combination, it is transient, impure, flimsy, resembling a flowing river or a burning lamp, flimsy like a banana stalk, and comparable to foam, illusion, a mirage, a dream, and so on—appears nevertheless to those who have identified themselves with it to be undecaying, eternal and full of substance. Hence for stimulating our renunciation the text says, ‘He produces this food through his meditation for the time being and rites. If he does not do this, it will be exhausted,’ for from the second chapter the knowledge of Brahman has to be inculcated for those who are disgusted with this universe.
Although three kinds of food are yet to be described, still taking them as already explained along with the previous ones, the result of knowing these as they are, is being summed up: He who knows this cause of their permanence as described above, means that the being (eater) is indeed the cause of their permanence, for he produces this food through his meditation for the time being and rites. If he does not do this, it will be exhausted. He eats food with Pratīka is being explained: ‘Pratīka’ means pre-eminence; hence the meaning is, pre-eminently. He who knows that the being who is the father of the different lands of food is the cause of their permanence, pre-eminently eats food and never becomes a subsidiary part of it. Unlike an ignorant man, this sage, being the self of the foods, becomes only their eater, but never a food. He attains the gods, is identified with the gods, and lives on nectar: This statement is a eulogy; there is no new meaning in it.
‘त्रीण्यात्मनेऽकुरुत’ इति मनो वाचं प्राणं, तान्यात्मनेऽकुरुत; ‘अन्यत्रमना अभूवम्, नादर्शम्,’ ‘अन्यत्रमना अभूवम्, नाश्रौषम्’ इति, मनसा ह्येव पश्यति, मनसा सृणोति । कामः संकल्पो विचिकित्सा श्रद्धाऽश्रद्धा धृतिरधृतिर्ह्रीर्धीर्भीरित्येतद्सर्वं मन एव; तस्मादपि पृष्ठत उपस्पृष्टो मनसा विजानाति; यः कश्च शब्दो वागेव सा । एषा ह्यन्तमायत्ता, एषा हि न; प्राणोऽपानो व्यान उदानः समनोऽन इत्येतत्सर्वं प्राण एव; एतन्मयो वा अयमात्मा, वाङ्मयो मनोमयः प्राणमयः ॥ ३ ॥
‘trīṇyātmane'kuruta’ iti mano vācaṃ prāṇaṃ, tānyātmane'kuruta; ‘anyatramanā abhūvam, nādarśam,’ ‘anyatramanā abhūvam, nāśrauṣam’ iti, manasā hyeva paśyati, manasā sṛṇoti | kāmaḥ saṃkalpo vicikitsā śraddhā'śraddhā dhṛtiradhṛtirhrīrdhīrbhīrityetadsarvaṃ mana eva; tasmādapi pṛṣṭhata upaspṛṣṭo manasā vijānāti; yaḥ kaśca śabdo vāgeva sā | eṣā hyantamāyattā, eṣā hi na; prāṇo'pāno vyāna udānaḥ samano'na ityetatsarvaṃ prāṇa eva; etanmayo vā ayamātmā, vāṅmayo manomayaḥ prāṇamayaḥ || 3 ||
3. ‘Three he designed for himself’ means: The mind, the organ of speech and the vital force; these he designed for himself. (They say), ‘I was absent-minded, I did not see it,’ ‘I was absent-minded, I did not hear it.’ It is through the mind that one sees and hears. Desire, resolve, doubt, faith, want of faith, steadiness, unsteadiness, shame, intelligence and fear—all these are but the mind. Even if one is touched from behind, one knows it through the mind; therefore (the mind exists). And any kind of sound is but the organ of speech, for it serves to determine a thing. but it cannot itself be revealed. Prāṇa, Apāna, Vyāna, Udāna, Samāna and Ana—all these are but the vital force. This body is identified with these—with the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force.
The three kinds of food—results of rites with five factors—which have been spoken of, being effects and extensive in scope, were kept separate from the previous ones. The succeeding portion up to the end of this section is devoted to the explanation of them. What is the meaning of, Three he designed for himself? It means:The mind, the organ of speechand vital force are the three kinds of food; these the father, after producing them at the beginning of the cycle, designed for himself. Of these, there is a doubt regarding the existence and nature of the mind. Hence the text says: There is a mind apart from the external
organs such as the ear. For it is a well-known fact that even when there is a connection between the external organ, the object and the self, a man does not perceive that object, which may be just in front, and when asked, ‘Have you seen this form?’ he says, ‘My mind was elsewhere—I was absent-minded, I did not see it.’ Similarly when asked, ‘Have you heard what I have said?' he says, ‘I was absent-minded, 1did not hear it.’ Therefore it is understood that that something else, viz. the internal organ called mind, which joins itself to the objects of all the organs, exists, in the absence of which the eye and other organs fail to perceive their respective objects such as form and sound, although they have the capacity to do so, and in the presence of which they succeed in it. Hence it is through the mind that everybody sees and hears, for vision and the like are impossible when the mind is engaged.
After the existence of the mind has been proved, the text proceeds to describe its nature: Desire, sex-attraction and the like, resolve, deciding about a thing which is before us, that it is white or blue and so on, doubt, notion of uncertainty, faith, belief in the efficacy of rites directed to invisible ends (the hereafter) as well as in the existence of the gods and the like, want of faith, the opposite notion, steadiness, supporting the body etc. when they droop, unsteadiness, the opposite of that, shame, intelligence and fear—all these, all such, are but the mind. They are forms of the mind or the internal organ. Another reason for the existence of the mind is being stated: Because even if one is touched by anybody from behind invisibly, one knows it distinctly, that this is a touch of the hand, or that this is a touch of the knee, therefore the internal organ called mind exists. If there is no mind to distinguish them, how can the skin alone do this? That which helps us to 'distinguish between perceptions is the mind.
The mind then exists, and its nature too has been known. Three kinds of food, which are the results of rites, viz. the mind, the organ of speech and the vital force, were sought to be explained here in their divisions according to the body, the elements and the gods. Of these, only the mind, out of the group consisting of the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force as relating to the body, has been explained. Now the organ of speech is to be described. Hence the text says: And any kind of sound in the world, whether it is of the articulate kind uttered by creatures with the help of the palate etc., or it is of the other kind produced by musical instruments or clouds etc., is but the organ of speech. So the nature of the organ of speech has been stated. Now its function is being described: For it, the organ of speech, serves to deter mine or reveal a thing, but it Cannot itself be revealed, like things; it only reveals them, for it is self-luminous like a lamp etc. The light of a lamp and so forth is not of course revealed by another light. Similarly the organ of speech only reveals things, but cannot itself be revealed by others (of the same category). Thus the Śruti avoids a regressus in infinitum by saying, ‘It cannot itself be revealed.’ That is to say, the very function of the organ of speech is to reveal.
Now the vital force is being described: Prana, the function of which is connected with the heart and is capable of moving to the mouth and nostrils, so called because it moves forward. Apāna, which functions below the he^rt and extends up to the navel; it is called Apāna, because it helps excretion. Vyāna, that which regulates the Prāṇa and Apāna and is the nexus between them, as also the cause of actions requiring strength. Udāna, that which causes nutrition, rising up, and so on; it extends from the sole of the feet to the head and functions upwards. Samāna, so called because of assimilating what we eat and drink; it has its seat in the belly and helps the digestion of food. Ana is the generalisation of these particular functions and is concerned with the general activities of the body. Thus all these functions of the Prāṇa and the rest, as described above, are but the vital force (Prāṇa)..
The Praṇa, which means the Ana (general nerve function) in the body with particular functions, has been described. And its activity also has been explained by a reference to its different functions. So the three kinds of food'called the mind, the organ of speech and the vital force as relating to the body, have been explained. Identified with these, i.e. their modifications, or composed of the mind, speech and vital force of Hiraṇyagarbha—what is it? this body including the organs, the microcosm, called ‘self’ because it is accepted as their self by ignorant people. That which has been described in a general way as ‘identified with these,’ is being elucidated by the specification with the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force.
The manifestations of those foods belonging to Hiraṇyagarbha as they relate to the elements are being described:
त्रयो लोकाः एत एव; वागेवायं लोकः, मनोऽन्तरिक्षलोकः, प्राणोऽसौ लोकाः ॥ ४ ॥
trayo lokāḥ eta eva; vāgevāyaṃ lokaḥ, mano'ntarikṣalokaḥ, prāṇo'sau lokāḥ || 4 ||
4. These are the three worlds. The organ of speech is this world (the earth), the mind is the sky, and the vital force is that world (heaven).
These, the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force, are the three worlds called the earth, sky and heaven. This is being specified: The organ of speech is this world, the mind is the sky, and the vital force is that world.
त्रयो वेदा एत एव; वागेवर्ग्वेदः, मनो यजुर्वेदः, प्राणह् सामवेदः ॥ ५ ॥
trayo vedā eta eva; vāgevargvedaḥ, mano yajurvedaḥ, prāṇah sāmavedaḥ || 5 ||
5. These are the three Vedas. The organ of speech is the Ṛg-Veda, the mind is the Yajur-Veda and the vital force the Sāma-Veda.
देवाः पितरो मनुष्या एत एव; वागेव देवाः, मनः पितरः, प्राणो मनुष्याः ॥ ६ ॥
devāḥ pitaro manuṣyā eta eva; vāgeva devāḥ, manaḥ pitaraḥ, prāṇo manuṣyāḥ || 6 ||
पिता माता प्रजैत एव; मन एव पिता, वङ्माता, प्राणः प्रजा ॥ ७ ॥
pitā mātā prajaita eva; mana eva pitā, vaṅmātā, prāṇaḥ prajā || 7 ||
7. These are the father, mother and child. The mind is the father, the organ of speech the mother, and the vital force the child.
Similarly these are the three Vedas, etc. These sentences are all easy.
विज्ञातं विजिज्ञास्यमविज्ञातमेत एव; यत्किंच विज्ञातम्, वाचस्तद्रूपम्, वाग्घि विज्ञाता; वागेनं तद्भूत्वावति ॥ ८ ॥
vijñātaṃ vijijñāsyamavijñātameta eva; yatkiṃca vijñātam, vācastadrūpam, vāgghi vijñātā; vāgenaṃ tadbhūtvāvati || 8 ||
8. These are what is known, what it is desirable to know, and what is/unknown. Whatever is known is a form of the organ of speech, for it is the knower. The organ of speech protects him (who knows this) by becoming that (which is known).
These are what is known, what it is desirable to know, and what is unknown. This is being specified: Whatever is clearly known iś a form of the organ of speech. The Śruti itself gives the reason: For it is the knower, being self-luminous. How can that be other than a knower which brings to light other objects as well? It will be stated later on, ‘Through the organ of speech, O Emperor, a friend is known’ (IV. i. 2). He who knows the particulars of the organ of speech gets the following result: The organ of speech pro tects him who knows its manifestations as given above, by becoming that which is known. That is, it becomes his food, or object of enjoyment, in that form.
यत्किंच विजिज्ञास्यं मनसस्तद्रूपम्, मनो हि विज्ञास्यम्; मन एनं तद्भूत्वावति ॥ ९ ॥
yatkiṃca vijijñāsyaṃ manasastadrūpam, mano hi vijñāsyam; mana enaṃ tadbhūtvāvati || 9 ||
9. Whatever it is desirable to know is a form of the mind, for the mind is what it is desirable to know. The mind protects him (who knows this) by becoming that (which it is desirable to know).
Similarly, whatever it is desirable clearly to know is a form of the mind, for the mind, since it takes the form of a doubt (considers the pros and cons of a thing), is what it is desirable to know. As before, he who knows the manifestations of the mind gets the following result: The mind protects him by becoming that which it is desirable to know, i.e. it becomes his food in that form.
यत्किंचाविज्ञातं प्राणस्य तद्रूपम्, प्राणो ह्यविज्ञातः; प्राण एवं तद्भूत्वावति ॥ १० ॥
yatkiṃcāvijñātaṃ prāṇasya tadrūpam, prāṇo hyavijñātaḥ; prāṇa evaṃ tadbhūtvāvati || 10 ||
10. Whatever is unknown is a form of the vital force, for the vital force is what is unknown. The vital force protects him (who knows this) by becoming that (which is unknown).
Likewise whatever is completely unknown, and not even suspected, is a form of the vital force, for the vital force is what is unknown, as the Śruti speaks of it as undefined (Ch. II. xxii. i). Since the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force have been divided into the forms of what is known, what it is desirable to know, and what is unknown, the statements, ‘These are the three worlds,’ and so on, are to be accepted solely on the authority of the Śruti. Since we see these three forms, viz. what is known, etc., are applicable to everything, it is from the statement of the Śruti that we are to understand that the meditation is to be confined to the particular objects as indicated. The vital force protects him by becoming that, i.e. becomes his food in the form of what is unknown. We often see that teachers and parents, for instance, help their pupils and (very young) children, barely suspected by or unknown to them. Similarly the mind and vital force can be the food of the sage, barely suspected by and unknown to him (respectively).
The manifestations of the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force relating to the elements have been described. The following (three) paragraphs deal with their manifestations relating to the gods:
तस्यै वाचः पृथिवी शरीरम्, ज्योतीरूपमयमग्निः; तद्यावत्य् एव वाक्, तावती पृथिवी, तावनयमग्निः || ११ ||
tasyai vācaḥ pṛthivī śarīram, jyotīrūpamayamagniḥ; tadyāvaty eva vāk, tāvatī pṛthivī, tāvanayamagniḥ || 11 ||
The earth is the body, or the external contather, of that organ of speech which has been spoken of as the food of Hiraṇyagarbha, and this terrestrial fire is its luminous organ, the content of the earth. The vocal organ of Hiraṇyagarbha has two forms: One is the effect (body), the contather and non-luminous: the other is the instrument (organ), the content and luminous. Both these, the earth and fire, are but the vocal organ of Hiraṇyagarbha. And as far as the organ of speech in its twofold aspect relating to the body and the elements extends, so far throughout extends the earth, the effect, as its container, and so far does this fire, which is the content and the instrument, pervading the earth in its luminous form. The rest is similar.
अथैतस्य मनसो द्यौः शरीरम्, ज्योतिरूपमसावादित्यः; तद्यावदेव मनः, तावती द्यौः, तावानसावादित्यः; तौ मिथुनं समैताम्, ततः प्राणोऽजायत; स इन्द्रः, स एसोऽसपत्नः, द्वितीयो वै सपत्नः; नास्य सपत्नो भवति, य एवं वेद ॥ १२ ॥
athaitasya manaso dyauḥ śarīram, jyotirūpamasāvādityaḥ; tadyāvadeva manaḥ, tāvatī dyauḥ, tāvānasāvādityaḥ; tau mithunaṃ samaitām, tataḥ prāṇo'jāyata; sa indraḥ, sa eso'sapatnaḥ, dvitīyo vai sapatnaḥ; nāsya sapatno bhavati, ya evaṃ veda || 12 ||
12. Heaven is the body of this mind, and that sun is its luminous organ. And as far as the mind extends, so far extends heaven, and so far does that sun. The two were united, and from that the vital force emanated. It is the Supreme Lord. It is without a rival. A second being is indeed a rival. He who knows it as such has no rival.
Heaven is the body, the effect, the container, of this mind that has already been spoken of as the food of Hiraṇyagarbha, and that sun is its luminous organ, the content. And as far as the mind in its aspect relating to the body or the elements extends, so far extends heaven, which is the container of the mind, the luminous organ, and so far does that sun, which is the luminous organ and the content. The two, fire and the sun, which are the forms of the organ of speech and the mind relating to the gods, the mother and father, were united, between the two halves of the cosmic shell (heaven and earth), the one resolving to do the function of generation belonging to the father, the mind, or the sun, and the other that of manifestation belonging to the mother, the organ of speech, or fire. And from that union the vital force, or Vayu emanated, to function as vibration. It, that which emanated, is the Supreme Lord, and not only that but it is also without a rival. What is a rival? A second being, appearing as an adversary, is called a rival. Hence the organ of speech and the mind, although they are different entities (from the vital force), never become its rivals, both being subordinate to the vital force (on the cosmic plane) as in the body. Incidentally, the result of meditation on this absence of rivalry is as follows: He, the sage, who knows it, the yital force, as such, as being without a rival, has no rival.
अथैतस्य प्राणस्यापः शरीरम्, ज्योतीरूपमसौ चन्द्रः; तद्यावानेव प्राणः, तावत्य आपः, तावानसौ चन्द्रः, त एते सर्व एव समाः, सर्वेऽनन्ताः; स यो हैतानन्तवत उपास्तेऽन्तवन्तं स लोकं जयति; अथ यो हैताननन्तानुपास्तेऽनन्तं स लोकं जयति ॥ १३ ॥
athaitasya prāṇasyāpaḥ śarīram, jyotīrūpamasau candraḥ; tadyāvāneva prāṇaḥ, tāvatya āpaḥ, tāvānasau candraḥ, ta ete sarva eva samāḥ, sarve'nantāḥ; sa yo haitānantavata upāste'ntavantaṃ sa lokaṃ jayati; atha yo haitānanantānupāste'nantaṃ sa lokaṃ jayati || 13 ||
13. Water is the body of this vital force, and that moon is its luminous organ. And as far as the vital force extends, so far extends water, and so far does that moon. These are all equal, and all infinite. He who meditates upon these as finite wins a finite world, but he who meditates upon these as infinite wins an infinite world.
Water is the body, the effect, the container of the organs, of this vital force that is the food of Hiraṇyagarbha, not of the vital force that has just been described as the child, and that moon is its luminous organ, as before. And as far as the vital force in its aspects relating to the body etc. extends, so far extends water, and so far does that moon, the content of the water, the organ, which in its aspects relating to the body and the elements pervades the water. So these are the three kinds of food, called the organ of speech, the mind, and the vital force, which were produced.by the father through rites with five factors. And the whole universe in its aspects relating to the body and the elements is pervaded by these. There is nothing besides these, either of the nature of an effect or an instrument (body or organ), and Hiraṇyagarbha is the sum of these. These, the organ of speech, the mind, and the vital force, are all equal in extensity—pervade whatever concerns the animate world in its aspects relating to the body and the elements, and for this very reason they are infinite, for they last as long as the relative universe. Surely we do not know of any relative universe apart from the bodies and organs. And it has been stated (pars, n-13) that speech, mind and the vital force consist of the body and organs. He who, whoever, meditates upon these —which are a part and parcel of Hiraṇyagarbha—in their aspect relating to the body or the elements, as finite, wins a finite world —a result which is commensurate with that meditation. That is, he is born as finite, not as one with these. But he who meditates upon these as infinite, as consisting of the universe, a part and parcel of all beings, and unlimited, wins an infinite world.
It has been said that the father, after producing seven kinds of food through rites with five factors, designed three of them for himself. These, the results of those rites, have been explained. Now how are these the results of those rites? This is being answered: Because those three kinds of food also, we find, have five factors, for wealth and rites can also be included in them. Of'them, the earth and fire, as has been explained, are the mother, heaven and the sun are the father, and the vital force (Vāyu), which is between these two, is the child. In order to show how wealth and rites can be included in them the next two paragraphs are being introduced.
स एष संवत्सरः प्रजापतिः षोडशकलः, तस्य रात्रय एव पञ्चदश कलाः, ध्रुवैवास्य षोदशि कला; स रात्रिभिरेवा च पूर्यतेऽप च क्षीयते; सोऽमावास्यां रात्रिमेतया षोडस्या कलया सर्वमिदं प्राणभृदनुप्रविश्य ततः प्रातर्जायते; तस्मादेतं रात्रिम् प्राणभृतः प्राणं न विच्छिन्द्यात्, अपि कृकतासस्य, एतस्या एव देवताया अपचित्यै ॥ १४ ॥
sa eṣa saṃvatsaraḥ prajāpatiḥ ṣoḍaśakalaḥ, tasya rātraya eva pañcadaśa kalāḥ, dhruvaivāsya ṣodaśi kalā; sa rātribhirevā ca pūryate'pa ca kṣīyate; so'māvāsyāṃ rātrimetayā ṣoḍasyā kalayā sarvamidaṃ prāṇabhṛdanupraviśya tataḥ prātarjāyate; tasmādetaṃ rātrim prāṇabhṛtaḥ prāṇaṃ na vicchindyāt, api kṛkatāsasya, etasyā eva devatāyā apacityai || 14 ||
14. This Prajāpati (Hiraṇyagarbha) has sixteen digits and is represented by the year. The nights (and days) are his fifteen digits, and the constant one is his sixteenth digit. He (as the moon) is filled as well as wasted by the nights (and days). Through this sixteenth digit he permeates all these living beings on the new-moon night and rises the next morning. Therefore. on this night one should not take the life of living beings, not even of a chameleon, the adoration of this deity alone.
This Prajāpati consisting of the three kinds of food, who is under consideration, is being particularly described as the year. He has sixteen digits or members and is represented by the year, consists of the year, or is Time. The nights and the days, i.e. the lunar days, are the fifteen digits of this Prajāpati consisting of time, and the constant one, which is ever the same, is his sixteenth digit. He is filled as well as wasted by the nights, the lunar days, called the digits. In the bright fortnight the Prajāpati who is the moon is filled by the lunar days beginning with the first, through the gradual increase of digits, i.e. waxes, till he attains the fulness of his orb on the full-moon night, and is also wasted by them in the dark fortnight through the gradual decrease of digits, till only the constant digit is left on the new-moon night. Through this abiding sixteenth digit called the constant one, he, the Prajāpati who is Time, permeates all these living beings by means of the water they drink and the herbs they eat—pervades them in these two forms—on the new-moon night and, staying there overnight, rises the next morning, joined to the second digit.
Thus that Prajāpati consists of five factors: Heaven and the sun as well as mind are the father ; the earth and fire as well as the organ of speech are his wife, the mother ; the vital force is their child ; the lunar days, or digits, are wealth, for they increase and decrease like it ; and the fact that these digits, which are divisions of time, cause changes in the universe is the rite. Thus this Prajāpati, as a whole, emerges as the result of rites with five factors, which is quite in accordance with his desire, ‘Let me have a wife, so that' I may be born. And let me have wealth, so that I may perform rites ’ (I. iv. 17). It is an accepted principle in life that the effect is commensurate with the cause. Because this moon on this night abides in her constant digit permeating all living beings, therefore on this new-moon night one should not take the life of living beings, not kill them, not even of a chameleon, which is naturally vicious and is killed by people, because the very sight of it is ináuspicious. One may ask: Is not the killing of animals forbidden by the dictum, ‘One must not kill any animal except where it is prescribed by the scriptures’ (Cf. Ch. VIII. xv. 1)? To this we reply: Yes, it is; the present text, however, does not make an exception to that rule about the killing of animals at other times that the new-moon night, or even of the chameleon, but is only (a special prohibition) in adoration of this deity, the moon.
यो वै स सम्वत्सरः प्रजापतिः षोडशकलः, अयमेव स योऽयमेवंवित्पुरुषः; तस्य, वित्तमेव पञ्चदश कलाः, आत्मैवास्य षोडशि कला, स वित्तेनैवा च पूरय्तेऽप च क्षीयते; तदेतन्नध्यम् यदयमात्मा, प्रधिर्वित्तम्; तस्माद्यद्यपि सर्वज्यानिं जीयते, आत्मना चेज्जीवति, प्रधिनागादित्येवाहुः ॥ १५ ॥
yo vai sa samvatsaraḥ prajāpatiḥ ṣoḍaśakalaḥ, ayameva sa yo'yamevaṃvitpuruṣaḥ; tasya, vittameva pañcadaśa kalāḥ, ātmaivāsya ṣoḍaśi kalā, sa vittenaivā ca pūrayte'pa ca kṣīyate; tadetannadhyam yadayamātmā, pradhirvittam; tasmādyadyapi sarvajyāniṃ jīyate, ātmanā cejjīvati, pradhināgādityevāhuḥ || 15 ||
15. That Prajāpati who has sixteen digits and is represented by the year is indeed this man who knows as above. Wealth constitutes his fifteen digits, and the body his sixteenth digit. He is filled as well as wasted by wealth. This body stands for a nave, and wealth is the felloe. Therefore if a man loses everything, but he himself lives, people say that he has only lost his outfit.
He who has been remotely described as that Prajāpati who has sixteen digits and is represented by the year, should not be considered to be altogether remote, because he is directly observed as this one. Who is it? This man who knows the Prajāpati consisting of the three kinds of food to be identical with himself, as described above. What is the similarity between them? This is'being explathed: Wealth such as cattle constitutes the fifteen digits of this man who knows as above, for it increases and decreases, and it aids the performance of rites. To contribute to his completeness, the body is the sixteenth digit of this sage, corresponding to the constant digit (of the moon). Like the moon he is filled as well as wasted by wealth. This is a familiar thing in everyday life. This stands for a nave, is fit to be such. What is it? This body. And wealth is the felloe. stands for the external outfit, like the spokes and felloes of a wheel. Therefore even if a man loses everything, suffers that affliction, but he himself, corresponding to the nave of a wheel, lives, people say that he has only lost his outfit, been deprived of his outer trappings, like a wheel losing its spokes and felloes. That is to say, if he is alive, he again grows by means of wealth, corresponding to the spokes and felloes.
Thus it has been explained how a man by the performance of rites with five factors combined with meditation, the divine wealth, becomes the Prajāpati consisting of the three kinds of food. And it has also been said that wealth such as the wife stands for the outfit. In the previous portion it has only been known in a general way that sons, rites and meditation lead to the attainment of the worlds, but not that there is a very definite relation between them and those results. This relation between the means such as the son and the particular results has to be stated. Hence the following paragraph:
अथ त्रयो वाव लोकाः—मनुष्यलोकः पितृलोको देवलोक इति; सोऽयं मनुष्यलोकः पुत्रेणैव जय्यः, नान्येन कर्मणा; कर्मणा पितृलोकाः, विद्यया देवलोकः; देवलोको वै लोकानां श्रेष्ठः, तस्माद्विद्यां प्रशंसन्ति। ॥ १६ ॥
atha trayo vāva lokāḥ—manuṣyalokaḥ pitṛloko devaloka iti; so'yaṃ manuṣyalokaḥ putreṇaiva jayyaḥ, nānyena karmaṇā; karmaṇā pitṛlokāḥ, vidyayā devalokaḥ; devaloko vai lokānāṃ śreṣṭhaḥ, tasmādvidyāṃ praśaṃsanti || 16 ||
16. There are indeed three worlds, the world of men, the world of the Manes and the world of the gods. This world of men is to be won through the son alone, and by no other rite; the world of the Manes through rites; and the world of the gods through meditation. The world of the gods is the best of the worlds. Therefore they praise meditation.
The word ‘Atha’ is introductory. There are indeed three worlds attainable by means mentioned in -the scriptures, neither more nor less.—‘Indeed’ is intensive—Which are they? The world of men, the world of the Manes and the world of the gods. Of these, this world of men is to be won or attained through the son alone as means, and by no other rite, nor. meditation. The last two words are understood. How this world is to be won through the son we shall explain later on. The world of the Manes through rites alone such as the Agnihotra, neither through the son nor through meditation. And the world of the gods through meditation, neither through the son nor through rites. The world of the gods is the best of the three worlds. Therefore they praise meditation, as being the means of attaining it.
अथातः संप्रत्तिः—यदा प्रैष्यन्मन्यतेऽथ पुत्रमाह, त्वं ब्रह्म, त्वं यज्ञः, त्वं लोक इति; स पुत्रः प्रत्याह, अहं ब्रह्म, अहं यज्ञः, अहं लोक इति; यद्वै किंचानूक्तं तस्य सर्वस्य ब्रह्मेत्येकता । ये वै के च यज्ञस्तेषां सर्वेषां यज्ञ इत्येकता; ये वै के च लोकास्तेषां सर्वेषां लोक इत्येकता; एतावद्वा इदं सर्वम्; एतन्मा सर्वं सन्नयमितोऽभुनजदिति, तस्मात् पुत्रमनुशिष्ठं लोक्यमाहुः, तस्मादेनमनुसशाति; स यदैवंविदस्माल्लोकात्प्रैति, अथैभिरेव प्राणैः सह पुत्रमाविशति । स यद्य् अनेन किंचिदक्ष्णयाऽकृतम् भवति, तस्मादेनं सर्वस्मात्पुत्रो मुञ्चति, तस्मात्पुत्रो नाम; स पुत्रेणैवास्मिंल्लोके प्रतिष्ठति, अथैनमेते दैवाः प्राणा अमृता आविशन्ति ॥ १७ ॥
athātaḥ saṃprattiḥ—yadā praiṣyanmanyate'tha putramāha, tvaṃ brahma, tvaṃ yajñaḥ, tvaṃ loka iti; sa putraḥ pratyāha, ahaṃ brahma, ahaṃ yajñaḥ, ahaṃ loka iti; yadvai kiṃcānūktaṃ tasya sarvasya brahmetyekatā | ye vai ke ca yajñasteṣāṃ sarveṣāṃ yajña ityekatā; ye vai ke ca lokāsteṣāṃ sarveṣāṃ loka ityekatā; etāvadvā idaṃ sarvam; etanmā sarvaṃ sannayamito'bhunajaditi, tasmāt putramanuśiṣṭhaṃ lokyamāhuḥ, tasmādenamanusaśāti; sa yadaivaṃvidasmāllokātpraiti, athaibhireva prāṇaiḥ saha putramāviśati | sa yady anena kiṃcidakṣṇayā'kṛtam bhavati, tasmādenaṃ sarvasmātputro muñcati, tasmātputro nāma; sa putreṇaivāsmiṃlloke pratiṣṭhati, athainamete daivāḥ prāṇā amṛtā āviśanti || 17 ||
17. Now therefore the entrusting: When a man thinks he will die, he says to his son, ‘You are Brahman, you are the sacrifice, and you are the world.’ The son replies, T am Brahman, I am the sacrifice, and I am the world.’ (The father thinks:) ‘Whatever is studied is all unified in the word “Brahman.” Whatever sacrifices there are, are all unified in the word " sacrifice.” And whatever worlds there are, are all unified in the word “world.” All this (the duties of a householder) is indeed this much. ‘He, being all this, will protect me from (the ties of) this world.’ Therefore they speak of an educated son as being conducive to the world. Hence (a father) teaches his son. When a father who knows as above departs from this world, he penetrates his son together with the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force. Should anything be left Undone by him through any slip the son exonerates him from all that. Therefore he is called a son. The father lives in this world through the son. Divine and immortal speech, mind and vital force permeate him.
Thus the three means called the son, rite and meditation have been connected with their respective results, the three worlds. A wife, being an aid to the obtaining of a son and the performance of rites, is not a separate means, and has therefore not been separately mentioned. Wealth too, being an aid to the performance of rites, is not a separate means. It is a well-known fact that meditation and rites lead to the winning of the worlds by merely coming into existence. But one does not know how a son, not being of the nature of an activity, can help to win them. This has to be explained. Now therefore follows the entrusting. This is the name of the rite which is going to be described. It is called ‘entrusting,’ because a father in this manner entrusts his own duties to his son. When should this be done? This is being stated: When a man, a father, on account of some omen or otherwise, thinks he will die, he says to his son, calling him, ‘You are Brahman, you are the sacrīfice, and you are the world.’ The son, thus addressed, replies,‘Iam Brahman, I am the sacrifice, and I am the world.’ Having already been instructed, he knows what to do; so he says these three sentences.
Thinking the meaning of these sentences to be hidden, the Śruti proceeds to explain them. Whatever is studied has been or remains to be studied, is all unified in the word ‘Brahman.’ That is, let the study of the Vedas which so long was my duty, be'henceforth done by you, for you are Brahman. Similarly whatever sacrifices there are, that were to be performed by me, whether I have performed them or not, are all unified in the word ‘sacrifice,’ That is, let whatever sacrifices I used to perform, be henceforth performed by you, for you are the sacrifice. And whatever worlds there are, that were to be won by me, whether I have won them or not, are all unified in the word ‘world,’ Henceforth you should win them, for you are the world. From now on I entrust to you the resolve which was mine of dutifully undertaking study, sacrifices and the conquest of the worlds, and I am freed from the resolve concerning these ties of duty. All this the son accepted as it was, having been instructed to that effect.
Guessing this intention of the father, the Śruti says: All this, the whole duty of a householder, is indeed this much, viz. that he must study the Vedas, perform sacrifices and win the worlds. He, being all this, taking all this load of mine off me and putting it on himself, will protect me from this world. The past tense has been used in the sense of the future, there being no restriction about tense in the Vedas. Because a son who is thus trained will free his father from this world, i.e. from the tieá of duty on earth, therefore Brāhmaṇas speak of an educated son as being conducive to the world for his father. Hence a father teaches his son, hoping he will be conducive to his attainment of the world. When a father who knows as above, who has entrusted his resolve about his duties to his son, departs from this world,,he penetrates or pervades his son together with the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force, which are under consideration. Owing to the cessation of the cause (false notion etc.) which limited them to the body, the father’s organ of speech, mind and vital force pervade everything in their cosmic form as the earth, fire and so on, like the light of a lamp within a jar when the latter is broken. The father too pervades everything along with them, for he is identified with the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force. He thinks, T am the infinite organ of speech, mind and vital force, whose manifestations have various aspects such as that relating to the body.’ Therefore it has been rightly said, ‘He penetrates his son together with the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force,’ for he follows these. He becomes the self of all including the son. The idea is this: A father who has a son instructed in this wāy remains in this very world as that son; that is, he should not be considered to be dead. Witness another Śruti, ‘This other self of his is his substitute for the performance of meritorious rites' (Ai. IV. 4, adapted).
Now the derivation of the word ‘Putra’ (son) is being given: Should anything, any dúty, be left undone by him, the father, through any slip or slight omission in the middle, the son exonerates him from all that unfulfilled duty of his standing as an obstacle to his attainment of the world, by fulfilling it himself. Therefore, because he saves his father by fulfilling his duties, he is called a son. This is the derivative meaning of the word ‘Putra’—one who ‘saves’ the father by ‘completing’ his omissions. The father although dead, is immortal and lives in this world through such a son. Thus he wins this world of men through his son. The world of the Manes and that of the gods are not won in that way, but simply by the fact of existence of meditation and rites. These help to attain the worlds not by undertaking some other activity like the son, but by simply coming into existence. Divine and immortal speech, mind and vital force, those pertaining to Hiraṇyagarbha, permeate him, this father who has entrusted his duties to his son.
पृथिव्यै चैनमग्नेश्च दैवी वागाविशति; सा वै दैवी वाग्यया यद्यदेव वदति तत्तद्भवति ॥ १८ ॥
pṛthivyai cainamagneśca daivī vāgāviśati; sā vai daivī vāgyayā yadyadeva vadati tattadbhavati || 18 ||
18. The divine organ of speech from the earth and fire permeates him. That is the divine organ of speech through which whatever he says is fulfilled.
How does this take place? This will be explained in this and the next two paragraphs. The Śruti itself has shown that the son, rites and meditation lead respectively to the world of men, of the Manes and of the gods. Here some prattlers (the Mīmāṃsakas) ignorant of the particular import of the Śruti say that the means such as the son lead to liberation. The Śruti has thus gagged them: Beginning with the statement that rites with five factors are undertaken with material ends, in the passage, ‘Let me have a wife,’ etc. (I. iv. 17), it has, among other things, concluded by connecting the son and the rest with their respective results. Therefore it is proved that the Śruti text referring to the (three) debts applies to an ignorant man and not one who has realised the Supreme Self. It will also be stated later on, ‘What shall we achieve through children, we who have attained this Self, this world?’ (IV. iv. 22).
Others say that the winning of the worlds of the Manes and the gods means turning away from them. And if one has a son and at the same time performs rites and meditation together, one turns away from these three worlds, and through the knowledge of the Supreme Self attains liberation. Hence, they say, the means such as the son lead indirectly to liberation itself. To silence them also, this portion of the Śruti sets itself to show the results attained by a man who has a son to whom he has entrusted his own duties, who performs rites and who knows the meditation on the three lands of food as identical with himself. And one cannot say that this veiy result is liberation, for it is connected with the three kinds of food, and all the foods are the effects of meditation and rites, since the father is stated to produce them again and again, and there is the statement about decay, ‘If he does not do this, it would be exhausted’ (I. v. 2). Thus only would the mention of the effect and instrument in the words, ‘body’ and ‘luminous organ’ (I. v. 11-13), be appropriate. Besides, the topic is concluded by a representation of the foods as consisting of name, form and action: ‘This (universe) indeed consists of three things,’ etc. (I. vi. 1). And it cannot be deduced from this one sentence in question (I. v. 16) that these three means being combined lead to liberation in the case of some, and identity with the three kinds of food in the case of others, for the sentence only admits of a single interpretation, viz. that means such as the son lead to identity with the three kinds of food.
The divine organ of speech, that which relates to the gods, from the earth and fire permeates him, this man who has entrusted this duties to his son. The divine organ of speech, consisting of the earth and fire, is the material of the vocal organs of all. But (in an ignorant man) it is limited by attachment and other evils pertaining to the body. In the case of the sage, these evils being eliminated, it becomes all-pervading, like water, or like the light of a lamp, when its obstruction has been removed. This is expressed by the text, ‘The divine organ of speech from the earth and fire permeates him.’ And that is the divine organ of speech, devoid of the evils of falsehood etc. and pure, through which whatever he says about himself or others is fulfilled. That is, his speech becomes infallible and irresistible.
दिवश्चैनमादित्याच्च दैवं मन आविशति; तद्वै दैवं मनो येनानन्द्येव भवति, अथो न शोचति ॥ १९ ॥
divaścainamādityācca daivaṃ mana āviśati; tadvai daivaṃ mano yenānandyeva bhavati, atho na śocati || 19 ||
Similarly the divine mind from heaven and the sun permeates him. And that is the divine mind, being naturally pure, through which he only becomes happy and never mourns, not being connected with the causes of grief.
अद्भ्यस्चैनं चन्द्रमसस्च दैवः प्राण आविशति; स वै दैवः प्राणो यः संचरंश्चासंचरंश्च न व्यथते, अथो न रिष्यति; स एवंवित्सर्वेषाम् भूतानामात्मा भवति; यथैषा देवतैवं सः; यथैतां देवतां सर्वाणि भूतान्यवन्ति, एवं हैवंविदं सर्वानि भूतान्यवन्ति । यदु किंचेमाः प्रजाः शोचन्ति, अमैवासां तद्भवति, पुन्यमेवामुं गच्छति, न ह वै देवान् पापं गच्छति ॥ २० ॥
adbhyascainaṃ candramasasca daivaḥ prāṇa āviśati; sa vai daivaḥ prāṇo yaḥ saṃcaraṃścāsaṃcaraṃśca na vyathate, atho na riṣyati; sa evaṃvitsarveṣām bhūtānāmātmā bhavati; yathaiṣā devataivaṃ saḥ; yathaitāṃ devatāṃ sarvāṇi bhūtānyavanti, evaṃ haivaṃvidaṃ sarvāni bhūtānyavanti | yadu kiṃcemāḥ prajāḥ śocanti, amaivāsāṃ tadbhavati, punyamevāmuṃ gacchati, na ha vai devān pāpaṃ gacchati || 20 ||
20. The divine vital force from water and the moon permeates him. That is the divine vital force which, when it moves or does not move, feels no pain nor is injured. He who knows as above becomes the self of all beings. As is this deity (Hiraṇyagarbha), so is he. As all beings take care of this deity, so do they take care of him. Howsoever these beings may grieve, that grief of theirs is connected with them. But only merit goes to him. No demerit ever goes to the gods.
Likewise the divine vital force from water and the moon permeates him. It is being specified: That is the divine vital force which, when it moves among the different beings taken individually, or does not move, when they are taken collectively—or moves in moving animals and does not move in stationary objects— feels no pain, is not affected by fear that causes sorrow, nor is injured or killed. He who knows the meditation on the three kinds of food as identical with himself, as described above, becomes the self of all beings, becomes their vital force, their mind and their speech, and thus, being the self of all beings, becomes omniscient and the doer of everything as well. This is the import. As is this deity, Hiraṇyagarbha, who attained this state first, so is he—his omniscience or omnipotence is never thwarted. ‘He’ refers to the sage who is compared with the other. Moreover, as all beings take care of or worship this deity, Hiraṇyagarbha, through sacrifices et., so do they take care of him, one who knows as above, constantly offer him worship consisting of sacrifices etc.
Now a doubt arises: It has been said that he becomes the self of all beings. Hence, being identified with their bodies and organs, he may be affected by their joys and sorrows. To which the answer is: Not so, for his understanding is not limited. It is those that identify themselves with limited objects who are seen to be affected by sorrow when, for instance, they are abused by anybody, thinking he has abused them. But this sage who is the self of all has no particular notion of identity with either the object that is abused or the agency that abuses, and cannot therefore be miserable on that account. And there is no ground for sorrow as in the case of that due to someone’s death. As when somebody dies, a man feels miserable, thinking that he was his son or brother—the grief being due to this relationship, and where this cause is absent, one, although witnessing that death, is not afflicted, similarly this divine being, who is not identified with limited things, having no defects such as the false notions about ‘mine,’ or ‘yours,’ and so on, which lead to misery, is not affected by it.
This is being expressed: Howsoever these beings may grīevè, that grīef of theirs, the pain due to that grief and the like, is connected with them, for it is due to their identification with limited things. But in the case of one who is the self of all, what can be connected, or disconnected, and with what? But only merit, i.e. good results, goes to him, the sage who is enjoying the status of Hiraṇyagarbha. He has done exceedingly meritorious work; hence only the results of that go to him. No demerit ever goes to the gads, for there is no scope for the results of evil actions among them. That is, misery, which is the result of evil actions, does not go to them.
Meditation on all three—the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force—without any distinction has been described in the passage, ‘These are all equal, and all infinite’ (I. v. 13). No speciality attaching to any one of these has been mentioned. Should one understand this as it is, or upon examination may some distinction be found in any one of these either for the purposes of a vow or meditation? This is being answered:
अथातो व्रतमीमांसा; प्रजापतिर्ह कर्माणि ससृजे, तानि सृष्टान्यन्योऽन्येनास्पर्धन्त—वदिष्याम्येवाहमिति वाग्दध्रे, द्रक्ष्याम्यहमिति चक्षुः, श्रोष्याम्यहमिति श्रोत्रम्, एवमन्यानि कर्माणि यथाकर्म; तानि मृत्युः श्रमो भूत्वोपयेमे, तान्याप्नोत्, तान्याप्त्वा मृत्युरवारुन्ध; तस्मात्श्राम्यत्येव वाक्, श्राम्यति चक्षुः, श्राम्यति श्रोत्रम्; अथेममेव नाप्नोद्योऽयं मध्यमः प्राणः; तानि ज्ञातुं दध्रिरे । अयं वै नः श्रेष्ठो यः संचरंश्चासंचरंश् च न व्यथते, अथो न रिष्यति, हन्तास्यैव सर्वे रूपमसामेति; त एतस्यैव सर्वे रूपमभवन्, तस्मादेत एतैनाख्यायन्ते प्राणा इति; तेन ह वाव तत्कुलमाचक्षते यस्मिन्कुले भवति य एवं वेद; य उ हैवंविदा स्पर्धतेऽनुशुष्यति, अनुशुष्य हैवान्ततो म्रियते इत्यध्यात्मम् ॥ २१ ॥
athāto vratamīmāṃsā; prajāpatirha karmāṇi sasṛje, tāni sṛṣṭānyanyo'nyenāspardhanta—vadiṣyāmyevāhamiti vāgdadhre, drakṣyāmyahamiti cakṣuḥ, śroṣyāmyahamiti śrotram, evamanyāni karmāṇi yathākarma; tāni mṛtyuḥ śramo bhūtvopayeme, tānyāpnot, tānyāptvā mṛtyuravārundha; tasmātśrāmyatyeva vāk, śrāmyati cakṣuḥ, śrāmyati śrotram; athemameva nāpnodyo'yaṃ madhyamaḥ prāṇaḥ; tāni jñātuṃ dadhrire | ayaṃ vai naḥ śreṣṭho yaḥ saṃcaraṃścāsaṃcaraṃś ca na vyathate, atho na riṣyati, hantāsyaiva sarve rūpamasāmeti; ta etasyaiva sarve rūpamabhavan, tasmādeta etainākhyāyante prāṇā iti; tena ha vāva tatkulamācakṣate yasminkule bhavati ya evaṃ veda; ya u haivaṃvidā spardhate'nuśuṣyati, anuśuṣya haivāntato mriyate ityadhyātmam || 21 ||
21. Now a consideration of the vow: Prajāpati projected the organs. These, on being projected, quarrelled with one another. The organ of speech took a vow, ‘I will go on speaking.’ The eye: ‘I will see.' The ear: ‘I will hear.’ And so did the other organs according to their functions. Death captured them in the form of fatigue—it overtook them, and having overtaken them it controlled them. Therefore the organ of speech invariably gets tired, and so do the eye and the ear. But death did not overtake this vital force in the body. The organs resolved to know it. ‘This is the greatest among us that, when it moves or does not move, feels no pain nor is injured. Well, let us all be of its form.’ They all assumed its form. Therefore they are called by this name of ‘Prāṇa.’ That family in which a man is born who knows as above, is indeed named after him. And he who competes with one who knows as above shrivels, and after shrivelling dies at the end. This is with reference to the body.
Now begins a consideration of the vow or act of meditation—among these organs whose function is to be observed as a vow? Prajāpati (Virāj), after projecting the beings, projected the organs such as that of speech, called here ‘work,’ because they are instruments of work. The particle ‘ha’ denotes tradition. These, on being projected. quarrelled with one another. How? The organ of speech took a vow,‘I will go on speaking, will never stop doing my function of speaking. If there is anybody who, like me, can keep at this function, let him show his strength.’ Similarly the eye: ‘I will see,’ The ear: ‘I will hear,’ And so did the other organs according to their respective functions. Death, the destroyer, captured them, the organs, in the form of fatigue. How? It overtook them, appeared among those organs, as they were engaged in their functions, in the form of fatigue, and having overtaken them it, death, controlled them, i.e. stopped them from functioning. Therefore, to this day, the organ of speech, being engaged in its function of speaking, invariably gets tired, ceases to function, being affected by death in the form of fatigue. And so do the eye and the ear. But death in the form of fatigue did not overtake this vital force in the body, which functions in the mouth. Therefore even now it functions tirelessly. The other organs resolved to know it. ‘This is the greatest, foremost, among us, because, when it moves or does not move, it feels no pain nor is injured. Well, let us now all be of its form, identify ourselves with the vital force.’ Having decided thus, they all assumed its form, realised the vital force as their own self—observed the function of the vital force as a vow, thinking their own functions as insufficient to ward off death. Because the other organs have the form of the vital force in so far as they are mobile, and have their own form in so far as they perceive objects, therefore they, the organ of speech and the rest, are called by this name of ‘Prāṇa.’ Nothing can be mobile except the vital force. And we observe that the functions of the organs are always preceded by movement.
That family in which a man is born who knows as above, that all the organs are but the vital force and are named after it, is indeed named after him by people. It is known by the name of the sage, that it is the family of such and such, as ‘the line of Tapatī.’ This is the result accruing to one who knows as above, that the organ of speech and the rest are but forms of the vital force and are named after it. And he who competes as a rival with one who knows as above, with the sage who identifies himself with the vital force, shrivels in this very body, and after shrivelling dies at the end, he does not die suddenly without suffering. This is with reference to the body: Here is concluded the subject of meditation on the vital force as identical with oneself in so far as it relates to the body. That relating to the gods will be next taken up.
अथाधिदैवतम्—ज्वलिष्याम्येवाहमित्यग्निर्दध्रे, तप्स्याम्यहमित्यादित्यः, भास्याम्यहमिति चन्द्रमाः, एवमन्या देवता यथादेवतम्; स यथैषां प्राणानां मध्यमः प्राणः, एवमेतासां देवतानां वायुः,; निम्लोचन्ति हान्या देवताः, न वायुः; सैषानस्तमिता देवता यद्वायुः ॥ २२ ॥
athādhidaivatam—jvaliṣyāmyevāhamityagnirdadhre, tapsyāmyahamityādityaḥ, bhāsyāmyahamiti candramāḥ, evamanyā devatā yathādevatam; sa yathaiṣāṃ prāṇānāṃ madhyamaḥ prāṇaḥ, evametāsāṃ devatānāṃ vāyuḥ,; nimlocanti hānyā devatāḥ, na vāyuḥ; saiṣānastamitā devatā yadvāyuḥ || 22 ||
22. Now with reference to the gods: Fire look a vow, ‘I will go on burning.’ The sun: ‘I will give heat.’ The moon: ‘I will shine.’ And so did the other gods according to their functions. As is the vital force in the body among these organs, so is Vāyu (air) among these gods. Other gods sink, but not air. Air is the deity that never sets.
Now the meditation with reference to the gods is being described. It is being decided which deity is the best for the purpose of observing his functions as a vow. Everything here is as in the preceding paragraph with reference to the body. Fire took a vow, ‘I will go on burning.’ The sun: ‘I will give heat.’ The moon: ‘I will shine.’ And so did the other gods according to their functions. As, with reference to the body, is the vital force in the body among these organs, not overtaken by death, nor stopped from functioning—remaining intact in its vow of functioning as the vital force, so is Vāyu (air) among these gods such as fire. Other gods such as fire sink, or set, cease to function, like the organ of speech etc. in the body, but not air, like the vital force in the body. Therefore air is the deity that never sets. Thus it is decided after consideration that the vow of one who identifies oneself with the vital force with reference to the body, and with air with reference to the gods, is unbroken.
अथैष श्लोको भवति—‘यतश्चोदेति सूर्यः, अस्तं यत्र च गच्छति’ इति प्रानाद्वा एष उदेति, प्राणेऽस्तमेति, ‘तं देवास्चक्रिरे धर्मम्, स एवाद्य, स उ श्वः’ इति । यद्वा एतेऽमुर्ह्यद्रियन्त तदेवाप्यद्य कुर्वन्ति । तस्मादेकमेव व्रतं चरेत्, प्राण्याच्चैवापान्याच्च, नेन्मा पाप्मा मृत्युराप्नु वदिति; यद्यु चरेत्समापिपयिषेत्, तेनो एतस्यै देवतायै सायुज्यं सलोकतां जयति ॥ २३ ॥
athaiṣa śloko bhavati—‘yataścodeti sūryaḥ, astaṃ yatra ca gacchati’ iti prānādvā eṣa udeti, prāṇe'stameti, ‘taṃ devāscakrire dharmam, sa evādya, sa u śvaḥ’ iti | yadvā ete'murhyadriyanta tadevāpyadya kurvanti | tasmādekameva vrataṃ caret, prāṇyāccaivāpānyācca, nenmā pāpmā mṛtyurāpnu vaditi; yadyu caretsamāpipayiṣet, teno etasyai devatāyai sāyujyaṃ salokatāṃ jayati || 23 ||
23. Now there is this verse: ‘The gods observed the vow of that from which the sun rises and in which he sets. It is (followed) to-day, and it will be (followed) to-morrow.’ The sun indeed rises from the vital force and also sets in it. What these (gods) observed then, they observe to this day. Therefore a man. should observe a single vow—do the functions of the Prāṇa and Apāna (respiration and excretion), lest the evil of death (fatigue) should overtake him. And if he observes it, he should seek to finish it. Through it he attains identity with this deity, or lives in the same world with it.
Now there is this verse or Mantra that brings out this very meaning: ‘The gods, fire and the rest, and the organ of speech etc. (in the body), in ancient times, after consideration observed the vow of that, viz. air and the vital force, from which the sun rises —externally he rises from air, and as the eye in the body, from the vital force— and in which, air and the vital force, he sets in the evening, and when a man goes to sleep. It is followed by the gods to-day, now, and it . will be followed by them to-morrow, in future. The words ‘followed by the gods’ are understood. Now the Brāhmaṇa briefly explains this Mantra: The sun indeed rises from the vital force and also sets in it, What is the meaning of the words, ‘The gods observed the vow of that.... It is (followed) to-day, and it will be (followed) to-morrow’? this is being stated: What vow these gods, Are and the rest and the organ of speech etc., observed then, i.e., the vow of air and of the vital force, they observe to this day, and will observe unbroken. But the vow of the organ of speech etc. and of fire and the rest is broken, for we see that at the time of setting, and when one falls asleep, they sink in air and the vital force respectively.
Similarly it has been said elsewhere, ‘When a man sleeps, his organ of speech is merged in the vital force, and so are the mind, the‘eye and the ear. And when he awakes, these again arise from the vital force. This is with reference to the body. Now with reference to the gods: When Are goes out, it sets in air. Hence they speak of it as having set. It indeed sets in air. And when the sun sets, he enters aií, and so does the moon; the quarters too rest on air. And they again arise from the air’ (Ś. X. iii. 3 6 - 8).
Because this one vow of air and the vital force, consisting of vibration or movement, persists in the gods such as fire and in the organ of speech etc.— since all the gods follow it alone, therefore a man, another person also, should observe a single vow. What is that? Do the functions of the Prāṇa and Apāna. The functions of these two, viz., respiration and excretion, never stop. Therefore, giving up the functions of all other organs, he should observe this one vow, lest the evil of death in the form of fatigue should overtake him. ‘Lest’ denotes apprehension. ‘If I swerve from this vow, I am sure to be overtaken by death’—with this dread at heart he should observe the vow of the vital force. This is the idea. And if he observes it, does take up the vow of the vital force, he should seek to finish it. If he desists from this vow, the vital force and the gods would be flouted. Therefore he must finish it. Through it, the observance of this vow of identification with the vital force, thinking, ‘The vocal and other organs in all beings as well as fire and the other gods are but a part and parcel of me, and I, the Vital force, the self, initiate all movement,’ he attains identity with this deity, the vital force, or lives in the same world with it. This latter result takes place when the meditation is not up to the mark.
Footnotes and references:
Not Hiraṇyagarbha alone, but every being in a particular cycle who performs meditation and rites according to the scriptures, is here spoken of as the father of all in the next cycle.
A portion of the Vedas explaining the Mantras. The Vedas consist of Mantras and Brāhmaṇas.
That is, prompted by desire, which is the product ol ignorance.
The other kind being left out of account as being palpably injurious.
The commoner meaning of the word ‘Bhrūṇa’ is a foetus.
So there is no antagonism with such Vedic texts as, ‘One who desires heaven must sacrifice’ (Tā. XVI: iii. 3).
That four of them are means and three are results.
This is a wider classification including all the previous ones mentioned in paragraphs 4 to 7, and involving a crossdivision. Nevertheless we are to take them as they are, since the śruti recommends them for meditation.
This is said for the purpose of meditation.
The cosmic aspect of the vital force, symbolised by air.
Bhartṛprapañca is meant.
The daughter of the sun.
Of which Hiraṇyagarbha is the cosmic aspect.