Lesson III - Contemplation of Saṃhitā

In the second lesson has been shewn in what particular way the text should be recited, to secure some visible and invisible good. In the third lesson is taught a certain contemplation which is calculated to secure fruits of this and the future world.

 

Invocation for fame and lustre.

There occurs first the following mantra which serves the purpose of an auspicious act. In the peace-chant given above, removal of obstacles was prayed for, while in this mantra the student prays for perfection in the contemplation and its fruits. The mantra reads as follows:

सह नौ यशः । सह नौ ब्रह्मवर्चसम् ॥ १ ॥

saha nau yaśaḥ | saha nau brahmavarcasam || 1 ||

1. Fame to us both: Brahma-varchasa to us both.

Now the śruti proceeds with the Upaniṣad or sacred teaching concerning conjunction (saṃhitā).^[1] Whatever fame^[2] accrues from a knowledge of the sacred teaching regarding Saṃhitā, may it accrue to both of us, master and pupil. Whatever lustre^[3] accrues from that cause, may it accrue to us both.—This invocation is uttered by the pupil. Such prayer, indeed, becomes him alone, as he has not yet achieved his aspirations. It does not become the master who has already achieved his aspirations. A master is one who has already achieved his aspirations.

The pupil’s fame consists in his being known to have rightly practised the contemplation, and the master’s fame in being known to have taught it aright. This implies that the contemplation has attained perfection, not wanting in any of its parts. Brahma-varchasa is the lustre which a brāhmaṇa ought to possess, and which accrues from a study of the Veda. It stands for all the fruits spoken of in the sequel of this lesson............ No doubt the blessing prayed for accrues only to the pupil, the worshipper; still, by courtesy, it is spoken of as a good accruing also to the master, inasmuch as the master will feel happy when the pupil attains the fruits prayed for.

 

Contemplation of Saṃhitā in the five objects.

The śruti now enunciates the Vidyā or contemplation for which the auspicious act of invocation has been performed.

अथातः संहिताया उपनिषदम् व्याख्यास्यामः । पञ्चस्वधिकरणेषु । अधिलोकमधिज्यौतिषमधिविद्यमधिप्रजमध्यात्मम् । ता महासंहिता इत्याचक्षते ॥ २ ॥

athātaḥ saṃhitāyā upaniṣadam vyākhyāsyāmaḥ | pañcasvadhikaraṇeṣu | adhilokamadhijyautiṣamadhividyamadhiprajamadhyātmam | tā mahāsaṃhitā ityācakṣate || 2 ||

2. Now, then, the Upaniṣad of Saṃhitā (the sacred teaching about conjunction) shall we declare in the five objects: in the worlds, in the lights, in knowledge, in progeny, in the self. These are great conjunctions, they say.

Now: after what has been taught in the preceding lesson as to how the Upaniṣads should be recited.  Then: because the buddhi or intellect, always accustomed as it has been to think of the text, cannot suddenly be directed to a knowledge of the truths taught in it The śruti says: We shall now teach the contemplation of Saṃhitā—how Saṃhitā should be regarded and meditated upon, a thing which is quite near to the mere text—with reference to the five objects of knowledge: namely, the contemplation of the worlds, of the lights, of knowledge, of progeny, of the self. As concerned with conjunction and with great things, these sacred teachings regarding the five objects of thought are spoken of as Mahā-saṃhitās, as great conjunctions, by those who know the Veda.

The student having practised recitation of the sounds, rhythm, etc., of the text in the manner laid down in the preceding anuvāka, we shall first explain the contemplation of Saṃhitā, which concerns itself with the recitation of the Vedic text; for, the student who is going to engage in contemplation, fully imbued as he is with the idea of Vedic recitation by long practice, will find it very hard to direct his mind at once to contemplations not connected with the recitation of the Vedic text. ‘Saṃhitā’ means an extremely close approximation of sounds to one another, ‘Upaniṣad’ here means contemplation, because by contemplation a man finds, lying very near him, all the good such as progeny, cattle, and the brahma-varchasa. The conjunction which has to be contemplated upon will be described in relation to five groups of things. To shew that there are not as many distinct contemplations as there are groups of things to be contemplated, the śruti proposes here to treat of one single act of contemplation comprehending all the five groups of objects................The conjunctions are said to be great because in the contemplation they are to be regarded as great things such as the worlds.

 

Contemplation of Saṃhitā in the Worlds.

Now the śruti proceeds to deal with the first of the five groups of things to be thought of in the contemplation of Saṃhitā:

अथाधिलोकम् । पृथिवी पूर्वरूपम् । द्यौरुत्तररूपम् । आकाशः सन्धिः । वायुः सन्धानम् । इत्यधिलोकम् ॥ ३ ॥

athādhilokam | pṛthivī pūrvarūpam | dyauruttararūpam | ākāśaḥ sandhiḥ | vāyuḥ sandhānam | ityadhilokam || 3 ||

3. Now as to the worlds: earth is the first form, heaven the next form, the interspace the junction, air the medium; thus far as to the worlds.

Of the conjunctions mentioned above, contemplation of conjunction in the worlds will now be described. The word ‘now’ in all these passages denotes the order in which the objects are to be regarded in the course of contemplation.—Earth is the first form, the first sound; that is to say, the first of the two sounds joined together should be regarded as the earth.^[4] Similarly heaven is the next sound. The interspace (antarikṣa) is the junction, the mid-space between the first and the second sounds, the place where the two sounds are joined together. Air is the medium^[5], that by which they are joined together. Thus has been taught the contemplation of Saṃhitā in the worlds.

In the scriptural text ‘iṣe-(t)-tvā,’ ‘e’ and ‘t’—the final and the initial sounds, respectively, of the words ‘ishe’ and ‘tvā’ which are to be joined together—are the two sounds joined together. The middle space between them should be regarded as the antarikṣa. The ‘t’ within the brackets is the sound which comes in by doubling the ‘t,’ one of the two sounds joined together, and it is this additional sound ‘t’ which has to be regarded as the air.

 

Contemplation of Saṃhitā in the Lights.

Then follows the second group:

अथाधिजौतिषम् । अग्निः पूर्वरूपम् । आदित्य उत्तररूपम् । आपः सन्धिः । वैद्युतः सन्धानम् । इत्यधिज्यौतिषम् ॥ ४ ॥

athādhijautiṣam | agniḥ pūrvarūpam | āditya uttararūpam | āpaḥ sandhiḥ | vaidyutaḥ sandhānam | ityadhijyautiṣam || 4 ||

4. Now as to the lights: fire is the first form, sun the second form, water the junction, lightning the medium. Thus far as to the lights.

This and the following groups should be interpreted like the preceding one.

 

Contemplation of Saṃhitā in Knowledge.

अथाधिविद्यम् । आचार्यः पूर्वरूपम् । अन्तेवास्युत्तररूपम् । विद्या सन्धिः । प्रवचनं संधानम् । इत्यधिविद्यम् ॥ ३ ॥

athādhividyam | ācāryaḥ pūrvarūpam | antevāsyuttararūpam | vidyā sandhiḥ | pravacanaṃ saṃdhānam | ityadhividyam || 3 ||

5. Now as to knowledge: master is the first form, pupil the second form, knowledge the junction, instruction the medium. Thus far as to knowledge.

Knowledge stands for the text which has to be taught by the master and learnt by the pupil.

 

Contemplation of Saṃhitā in Progeny.

Then follows the fourth group:

अथाधिप्रजम् । माता पूर्वरूपम् । पितोत्तररूपम् । प्रजा संधिः । प्रजननं संधानम् । इत्यधिप्रजम् ॥ ६ ॥

athādhiprajam | mātā pūrvarūpam | pitottararūpam | prajā saṃdhiḥ | prajananaṃ saṃdhānam | ityadhiprajam || 6 ||

6. Now as to progeny: mother is the first form, father the second form, progeny the junction, procreation the medium. Thus far as to progeny.

Progeny: sons, grandsons etc.

 

Contemplation of Saṃhitā in the Self.

अथाध्यात्मम् । अधरा हनुः पूर्वरूपम् । उत्तरा हनुरुत्तररूपम् । वाक् संधिः । जिह्वा संधानम् । इत्यध्यात्मम् ॥ ७ ॥

athādhyātmam | adharā hanuḥ pūrvarūpam | uttarā hanuruttararūpam | vāk saṃdhiḥ | jihvā saṃdhānam | ityadhyātmam || 7 ||

7. Now as to the self: lower jaw is the first form, upper jaw the second form, speech the junction, tongue the medium. Thus far as to the self.

‘Self’ here denotes the whole aggregate made up of the physical body, sense-organs, etc., as well as the Consciousness witnessing them all, inasmuch as the notion of self refers to this aggregate. It is this self with which the fifth group is concerned. Speech: the organ of speech located in the throat, palate, etc.

The Śruti concludes the members of conjunction described above in the following words:

इतीमा महासंहिताः ॥ ८ ॥

itīmā mahāsaṃhitāḥ || 8 ||

8. Thus these are the great conjunctions.

 

Contemplation of Saṃhitā enjoined for a specific end.

This contemplation is prescribed as a means to a specific end in the following words:

य एवमेता महासंहिता व्याख्याता वेद । संधीयते प्रजया पशुभिः । ब्रह्मवर्चसेनान्नाद्येन सुवर्ग्येण लोकेन ॥ 9 ॥

ya evametā mahāsaṃhitā vyākhyātā veda | saṃdhīyate prajayā paśubhiḥ | brahmavarcasenānnādyena suvargyeṇa lokena || 9 ||

Whoso should contemplate these great conjunctions thus declared is endued with progeny and cattle, with brahma-varchasa, with food to eat, with the region of svarga.

The Sanskrit verb ‘vid,’ to know, should be here understood in, the sense of upāsana or contemplation because this section treats of upāsana. Upāsana consists in a continuous flow of one and the same idea as recommended by the scripture, unmixed with other ideas, and made to hang on some perceptible object recommended by the scripture. He who renders constant service to the Guru or to the King is said to render upāsana to him, and he attains the fruit thereof. Here, too, he who contemplates in the manner described above attains progeny and other fruits.

The Sanskrit root ‘vid,’ no doubt, denotes knowledge produced by the operation of sense-organs, not upāsana or the act of contemplation, a mental act depending on the will and effort of the individual. Still, the verb ‘vid’ which means  toknow should here be understood in its secondary sense of upāsana or contemplation which is allied to knowledge, both knowledge and contemplation being alike functions of the mind. The word cannot be understood here in its primary sense inasmuch as mere knowledge which is not dependent on the individual’s will and effort cannot form the subject of an injunction. If mere knowledge were meant here, then, as it has been already imparted in the words “earth is the first form” and so on, there would be no need for an injunction. It cannot be urged that the form ‘veda’ occurring in the Upaniṣad is in the indicative mood and does not therefore mean an injunction. For, we regard the form ‘veda’ imperative, as often used in the Vedic texts. It may perhaps be also urged that this form ‘veda’ is indicative, not imperative, and that therefore the sentence merely repeats the truth already presented to the mind. In reply, we say that mere knowledge of the truth does not enable one to attain progeny, cattle, and other fruits mentioned. Wherefore, we are to understand that the word ‘veda’ is used in its secondary sense of contemplation, and is in the imperative mood, signifying an injunction. This interpretation is, moreover, in accordance with the context, the present section being concerned with upāsana as may be seen from the last words of the sixth lesson, “thus do thou, O Prāchīna-Yogya, contemplate (upāssva).” Here, svarga is indeed the fruit to be reaped in the future. As to the cattle and other fruits, they may be attained either here or hereafter, as in the case of the Chiīrā sacrifice whose fruits—namely, cattle—are said to be attainable here in the absence of all obstacles, or hereafter if there should be any obstacles in the way of its attainment in the present birth. It is for the attainment of fruits like these that the act of contemplation which depends on the individual’s will and effort is enjoined here by the word ‘veda.’

 

The Philosophy of Contemplation.

[In the Vedānta-sūtras, various points concerning upāsana have been discussed and settled. The Vedānta-sutras,—better known as the Śārīraka-Mīmāmsā, an enquiry into the embodied soul,—comprise four books (adhyāyas) divided each into four parts (pādas), each of these four parts containing several sections (adhikaraṇas.) An adhikaraṇa is made up of one or more aphorisms (sūtras) and forms a complete discussion of a single question. The commentator on this Upaniṣad gives here and there at the close of a lesson a digest of such discussions as bear upon the subject-matter  of the lesson.

Every such discussion will be presented here in its three following parts:

1. Question:—A statement of the two or more different, antagonistic, alternative points of view presenting themselves on a subject.

2. Pūrvapakṣa or the Prima Facie View: —The one or more points of view which will be ultimately set aside, with all the arguments in its or their support.

3. Siddhānta or Conclusion:—That point of view which has the strongest support of evidence and which should therefore be accepted as the final demonstrated truth, as well as all the arguments which can be adduced in its behalf.]

 

The Upasaka should be seated when engaged in Contemplation.

The question of the upāsaka’s posture is discussed as follows in the Vedānta-Sūtras IV. i. 7-10:

(Question):—Is it necessary or not necessary for a man to be seated while engaged in contemplation?

(The Pvinm Facie View:)—It is unnecessary, inasmuch as no particular posture of the body has any bearing on the activity of manas.

(Conclusion:)—It is necessary that he should be seated when engaged in contemplation. Otherwise, contemplation is impossible. In the first place it is impossible for a man to contemplate while lying down, since all on a sudden he may be overpowered by sleep. Neither is it possible for him to contemplate when standing or walking; for, the mind would then wander away from the point by having to attend to the balancing of the body and to ascertain the right road.

 

No specific time and place necessary for Upāsana.
(Vedānta-Sūtras, IV. i. II.)

(Question:)—Is there any specific time or place wherein alone one should practise contemplation?

(The prima facie view):—The Veda has prescribed the east as the proper direction for Brahmayajña, the place inclined towards the east for Vaiśvadeva, the afternoon for Piṇḍa-pitṛyajña, and so on. Thus, time and place of a specific character are prescribed in the case of Vedic rites. In the case of contemplation, too, which is alike an act enjoined by the Veda, there should be a specific time and place prescribed.

(Conclusion:)—Concentration is the primary condition of meditation (dhyāna), and this concentration is not improved by resorting to any particular place or time. There can therefore be no specific time or place prescribed. Hence it is that the śruti, prescribing a proper place for the practice of yoga, recommends that the place selected should be agreeable to the mind. One should practise yoga only at a place which is pleasing to the mind. No specific place is prescribed in the scriptures. It is true that the śruti declares that the place selected for the practice of yoga should be “even, clean, free from gravel, fire and sand.”^[6] But, as the śruti concludes by saying that the place should be pleasing to the mind, we understand that there the śruti only refers to some of the general conditions which facilitate contemplation, the end in view. These general conditions being satisfied, there is no restriction that any particular place or time should be resorted to for yoga. The śruti only means that contemplation should be practised where concentration is possible.

 

The Scope of Saṃhitā-Upāsana.

We have now to discuss as to how much of the attributes of the Being described in the scriptures should be brought within the sphere of contemplation. In the Aitareya-Upa-niṣad also, contemplation of Saṃhitā is given as follows:

“Now, then, the sacred teaching regarding Conjunction”;^[7]

and so on. Now we have to enquire:

1. Are the Upāsana given in the Aitareya recension and that given in the Tait-tirīya recension one and the same or different?
2. Even if they are one and the same, is it necessary or not necessary that all that is taught in one place should be taken as taught in the other?

As to the first question: on the principle established in the case of Panchāgni-Vidyā and Prāṇa-Vidyā, it may at first thought appear that the Upāsanas of Saṃhitā taught in the Aitareya and the Taittirīya recensions are one and the same.

 

Identity of Upāsanas taught in different Upaniṣads.

The identity of Upāsana in the case of Panchāgni-Vidyā and Prāṇa-Vidyā has been established in the Vedānta-Sūtras III. iii. i. as follows:

(Question:)—The Chhāndogya and Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣads treat of the Upāsana of “the five fires.” Are the Upāsanas different or identical?

(The Prima Facie View:)—The two Upaniṣads teach two different sorts of contemplation, these last being known by different names, Kauthuma and Vājasaneyaka respectively; so, too, in the case of other Upāsanas. There is yet another mark pointing to a distinction between the Upā-sanas taught in different recensions. The ceremony called Śiro-vrata is spoken of in the Muṇḍaka-Upaniṣad in the words: “This Brahma-Vidyā should be taught to those only by whom the vow of śiro-vrata has been duly observed.”^[8] Śiro-vrata is a kind of vow enjoined only on the students of the Atharva-Veda, but not on others. It would, therefore, seem that difference in recension makes the Upāsanas quite distinct.

(Conclusion):—Despite the difference of recension the Upāsana remains one and the same, because of the identity of the teaching. The contemplation of Prāṇa, for instance, is taught in the Chhāndogya-Upaniṣad in the words,  “Whoso, verily, contemplates (Prāṇa) the Best and the Highest.”^[9] And the Bṛhadāraṇyaka treats of the contemplation of Prāṇa in the same words. Similarly, the five fires of Heaven, Rain, Earth, Moon, and Woman, recommended for contemplation in what is called the Panchāgni-Vidyā are spoken of in exactly the same terms in the two recensions. And the fruits also of the Upāsana of Prāṇa,—namely, that the Upāsaka “verily becomes the best and the highest” are described in the two recensions in exactly the same terms. As to the Upāsana being known by different names such as Kauthuma, Vājasaneyaka, and so on, they are not so named by the śruti itself. It is, on the other hand, only the students who name the different recensions of the Veda after the sages who have taught them. As to the contention that the śiro-vrata goes to indicate a difference in the Upāsana, we answer that this ceremony is necessary for the learning of the Vedic text, not for a practice of the contemplation therein taught. The words ‘he that has not observed the vow should not learn it’^[10] show that it is a vow connected with the learning of the text. Wherefore, there being so many marks of identity while there is none pointing to a distinction, it is but proper to maintain that the mere fact of an upāsana being taught in two different recensions makes no difference in the upāsana itself.

Following the same principle in the present case, one may argue that even the upāsanas of conjunction as taught in the two recensions are identical, because, in the first place, the object to be contemplated upon is one and the same as indicated by the words “whoso thus contemplates this conjunction” and the words “Earth is the first form,” and so on; and also because the fruits of the upāsana as described in the two places are of the same kind, namely “He is endued with progeny and cattle.”

 

When different attributes should be gathered together in Upāsana.

Now, as to the second question raised above, the principle of gathering together all the attributes spoken of in different places in connection with one and the same upāsana has also been established in the Vedānta-Sūtras III. iii. 5. as follows:

(Question:)—Are the various attributes, spoken of in connection with an upāsana taught in different places, to be gathered together or not?

(Prima Facie View:)—The Vājasaneyaka-Upaniṣad, when teaching of the contemplation of Prāṇa, assigns to it an additional attribute—that it is the ‘semen,’—in the words “The semen, verily, soared up.”^[11] As this attribute is not mentioned in the Chhāndogya, one may think that that attribute should not be thought of when contemplating Prāṇa according to the teaching of the latter, the purpose of contemplation being served by regarding the attributes of Prāṇa as the vital breath, as speech, and so on.

(Conclusion:)—Though untaught in the Chhāndogya recension, the attribute should be added to the object of contemplation, because it is taught in the other recension. We do find Agnihotra and other sacrificial rites being performed in all their parts as taught in the different recensions. Against this it may be urged that, the purposes of contemplation being served by those attributes only which are given in one’s own recension, it is unnecessary to add to them those attributes also which are given elsewhere. This contention has no force; for, on the principle that more work produces more result, the attributes spoken of in other recensions are as serviceable as those given in one’s own. Wherefore it is necessary to collect together all the attributes mentioned in different recensions.

In pursuance of the principle thus established, one may think that to the details of the Saṃhitā-Upāsana given in the Taittirīya-Upaniṣad should be added those given in the Aitareya-Upaniṣad, such as “Speech is the first form, manas the second form,”^[12] and so on; and that to those given in the Aitareya-Upaniṣad should be added the details given in the Taittirīya-Upaniṣad, such as “Fire is the first form,” and so on.

Thus āt first sight it would appear that the Upāsanas of Saṃhitā taught in the two recensions are one and the same, and that the several attributes mentioned in the two places should be gathered together in thought by him who wishes to contemplate Saṃhitā or conjunction.

 

Two distinct Upāsanas of Saṃhitā.

This prima facie view should be set aside in pursuance of the principle established in the Vedānta-Sūtras III. iii. 6, in the case of the Udgītha-Vidyā. This principle is discussed as follows:

(Question):—Are the Udgītha-Vidyās taught in the Chhāndogya and the Bṛhadāraṇyaka identical or different?

(The prima facie view):—As they are both alike designated as the Udgītha-Vidyā, they are properly one and the same. No doubt the designation is not authorised by the Veda; but such incidents as a war among the vital activities are related in both texts alike. Having represented the sāttvic and tāmasic activities of the senses as Devas and Asuras respectively, the Chhāndogya describes a war among them; and then, after shewing that speech and other Devas are assailed by Asuras, it declares that the Prāṇa-Deva alone is unassailed by them. All this is related in the same way in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka. The teachings of the two Upaniṣads refer apparently to one and the same vidyā (upāsana).

(Conclusion):—They are really two different vidyās, the thing to be contemplated upon being different in each. In the Chhāndogya, the syllable ‘Om,’ occurring in the Udgītha, a particular song, has to be regarded as Prāṇa, Life; whereas in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Prāṇa, represented as the chanter of the whole Udgītha song, as the stimulator of the organ of speech, has to be regarded as Udgātṛ,—that one of the four principal priests at a sacrifice whose function it is to chant the hymns of the Sāma-Veda. Thus owing to a difference in the thing to be contemplated, the two vidyās are quite different. As to the war among sense-organs being related alike in both, this point of similarity, found as it is only in minor details, cannot by itself point to an identity in the main vidyās. In both alike, no doubt, Prāṇa is represented to be the highest, as unassailable by the Asuras, and this ought to enter into the contemplation; but as the difference already pointed out in the thing to be contemplated has not been gainsaid, the Udgītha-Vidyās taught in the two Vedas are quite different.

In accordance with the principle thus established, in the present case we should look upon the contemplation of conjunction taught in the Taittirīya and Aitareya Upaniṣads  as different on account of a radical difference in the things to be contemplated upon. In the former, the things to be contemplated upon in the contemplation of conjunction have been declared in the five groups of objects; and in the latter, the things to be contemplated upon are divided into adhidaiva and adhyātma, cosmic and personal.

It is there declared as  follows:

“Vāyu and Ākāśa, these are the adhidaivata.
Then as to the adhyātma: Speech is the first
form, and manas the second form,”^[13] and so on.

The extent of similarity in the thing to be contemplated—-in so far as the Earth is mentioned as the first form in both alike—is not sufficient to make the two vidyās identical. The points of difference preponderate, and it is but reasonable that the preponderant should prevail.

The two vidyās being thus different, it is not right that the several things mentioned in the Aitareya-Upaniṣad as worth contemplating should be added to those declared here in the Taittirīya-Upaniṣad. No part of the New Moon and Full Moon sacrifices, for instance, is added to the Agnihotra, because the last is quite different from the two.

It has been thus proved that the two vidyās taught in reference to Saṃhitā are different, and that therefore no part of the details given in the Aitareya should be added to what is given in the Taittirīya-Upaniṣad.

 

Sef-Contemplation and Symbolic Contemplation.

There is yet another point for discussion. Upāsanas are of two kinds, those which involve the contemplation of the Self, and those which are concerned with external symbols (Pratīka). In the former, the Paramātman, the Highest Self, is contemplated in His saguṇa or conditioned form, as taught in the sixth anuvāka. There it is taught that the Puruṣa, known as Paramātman, the Highest Self, abiding in the heart-space, has to be contemplated upon as made up of manas, as immortal, as golden, and so on, in the thought “I am that Paramātman.” This contemplation of the Self is well discussed in the Ve-dānta-Sūtras IV. i. 3. When the devotee contemplates a  visible thing outside the Highest Self, and exalts that thing by way of regarding it as a great Devatā or as Brahman Himself, the contemplation is said to be symbolic, concerned with a symbol. In the present case it is taught that “Earth is first form.” Here the first sound in a conjunction has to be contemplated, being regarded as the Bhū-Devatā, the Intelligence functioning in the Earth. Where it is taught that “Manas should be contemplated as Brahman” and so on, it is manas, &c.,—exalted by being regarded as Brahman,—which should be contemplated.

 

No Symbol should be contemplated as the Self.

And this symbol should not be regarded by the devotee as his own Self. A symbol is an effect of or an emanation from Brahman, and as such it forms a fit object on which the contemplation of the Supreme may be made to hang. That such symbols should not be regarded as the Self has been established in the Vedānta-Sūtras, IV. i. 4. as follows:

(Question:)—When it is taught that manas should be regarded as Brahman, that the Sun should be regarded as Brahman, and so on, it means that the symbols,—manas, the sun, etc.,—exalted by being regarded as Brahman, form the objects of contemplation. Are those symbols to be regarded in contemplation as one’s own Self?

(Prima facie view:)—These symbols should also be contemplated as one’s own Self, for the symbols are effects of or emanations from Brahman, and as such are one with Brahman; and jīva, too, is one with Brahman. Thus all distinction being absent by both of them being alike one with Brahman, the symbol which is the object of contemplation and jīva who is the contemplator are one and the same.

(Conclusion:)—When the symbol which is an effect of or emanation from Brahman is regarded as one with Brahman, then what has made it a symbol has quite vanished away. When the pot becomes one with clay, the pot as such has vanished away. When, again, the jīva, the separate individual Ego, is regarded as one with Brahman, then he ceases to be a separate individual Ego, and in consequence he ceases to be a contemplator. If, with a view to preserve intact the distinction between the object of contemplation and the contemplator, the oneness of cause and effect and the unity of jīva and Brahman be disregarded, then the symbol and the contemplator cannot be one, and they will be quite different from each other like the cow and the buffalo. Wherefore it is not right to contemplate the symbol as the Self.

 

One mode alone of Self-Contemplation should be practised.

Now, all upāsanas in which Brahman, the object of contemplation, is regarded as one with the Self, culminate in the sākṣātkāra or actual perception of Brahman; so that when Brahman is intuited by one Upāsana, other contemplations are of no use. By engaging in another contemplation, the mind may even wander away from the sākṣātkāra already attained. Accordingly, when several upāsanas are taught for the benefit of one who seeks to attain Brahma-sākṣātkāra, to intuitively realise Brahman, it has been decided that only one of them—it may be any one—should be resorted to.

 

Symbolic Contemplations may be practised in any number.

But, in the present case, the contemplation of conjunction may be practised in one, two, or more forms at will. This point has been settled in the Vedānta-Sūtras III. iii. 60. as follows:

(Question:)—Is there any restriction as to the number of symbolic contemplations to be practised? Or can they be practised in any number at will?

(Prima facie view:)—The principle established in the case of those upāsanas in which the Self is contemplated as one with the object of contemplation may be applied to the contemplation of symbols, the object in view here alike being the sākṣātkāra.

(Conclusion:)—There is a vast difference between the two. As to the former, the Śruti gives us to understand—in the words, “Becoming the Deva, he is absorbed in the Devas”— that as the culminating point of contemplation, the contemplator realises while still alive his unity with the Deva, and that after death he becomes the Deva Himself. There is no evidence whatever to shew that contemplation of symbols produces sākṣātkāra. And as sākṣātkāra is not the aim of the contemplation of symbols, we should understand that the several objects of enjoyment, declared— in the respective contexts—to be attainable, constitute the fruits of the contemplation of symbols. Accordingly, as producing fruits of a distinct kind, one upāsana does not become useless when another has been practised. And the objection that the mind would wander away from the point does not at all apply to the present case; for, by contemplating one symbol at certain moments and again at another moment contemplating another symbol, the apūrva or invisible effect of the first contemplation does not become extinct. Therefore the symbolic contemplations may be practised at will, either one alone or more than one; and in the latter case the many contemplations may be practised either severally or conjointly.

 

The Symbol should be contemplated as Brahman, not vice versa.

From the expression “Earth is the first form” it may at first sight appear that, being the first mentioned, earth is the subject of the proposition and is therefore the thing to be contemplated, i.e., the symbol, and that the first sound in the conjunction, which is subsequently mentioned, is the predicate, showing how that symbol is to be regarded. On the other hand, earth being the superior of the two, the first sound in the conjunction should be looked upon as a symbol and contemplated as earth. For instance, the small sālagrā-ma stone is regarded as the Supreme—as Viṣṇu, as Śiva, and so on; but not vice versa. The principle that an inferior thing which is a symbol should be viewed in contemplation as a superior one is established in the Vedānta-sūtras IV. i. 5. as follows:

(Question:)—The śruti teaches us to contemplate that “Manas is Brahman,” and so on. There arises the question, are we to regard manas etc. as Brahman, or are we to regard Brahman as manas etc.?

(Prima facie view:)—Brahman being the Dispenser of the fruits of all actions, it is Brahman whom we should contemplate as manas, as something not Brahman.

(Conclusion:)—Brahman is the superior of the two, and it is therefore proper that manas, the inferior one, should be contemplated as Brahman, the superior. To take an example from our wordly concerns: when a king’s servant is addressed as king himself, he feels honored, but not vice versa. The word ‘as’ (Sanskrit ‘iti.’) going with Brahman in the passages “let him contemplate manas as Brahman” shews that manas should be regarded as Brahman. It may be asked, how can Brahman award fruits of action, when something other than Brahman, such as manas, is worshipped? We answer thus: as the presiding Lord witnessing all actions, He can award fruits of our contemplation in the same way that He awards fruits when we worship a guest who is entitled to our hospitality. Wherefore, we should contemplate the symbol,—which in itself is a thing different from Brahman,—viewing it as Brahman.

No doubt the words in the text, “the sacred teaching about conjunction shall we declare in the five worlds,” seem to imply that earth etc., denoted as they are by words in the locative case, are the objects to which contemplation should be directed—that is to say, that they are the symbols; still, it is but proper to understand that the first sound, etc, are the symbols which have to be viewed as earth etc. When, for instance, it is taught “Let him contemplate the fivefold Sāman in the worlds,” it has been made out that the Sāman forming an integral part of a sacrificial rite is the symbol which should be viewed as worlds, these last being denoted by a word in the locative case.

Indeed, this point has been established in the Vedānta-Sūtra IV. i. 6, on the ground that Sāman used as the object of the act of contemplation is the main thing to be contemplated, and is therefore the symbol which should be viewed as worlds. Similarly, here in the passage “whoso should contemplate these conjunctions,” conjunctions form the object of the act of contemplation, and we are therefore to understand that they are symbols to be viewed as earth etc. Though earth, etc., are symbols, yet as constituting the forms in which the first sound, etc., are to be viewed, they may be properly referred to in the words “in the worlds” etc.

 

Upāsana defined.

To discuss yet another point:

(Question -.)—What is upāsana? Is it a single act of thought or a frequent repetition of one and the same thought?

(Prima facie view:)—Just as the scriptural injunction “He shall initiate a Brāhmaṇa of eight years into the study of Vedas” is duly observed when the act is once done, so too, by a single act of thought, the scriptural injunction is duly fulfilled, and no repetition of the thought is necessary.

(Conclusion:)—Not so, we say; for, as in the learning of the Vedic texts, the thought should be repeated. Just as, in pursuance of the scriptural command that every one should learn his own scriptures, one recites the Vedic text frequently till he can fix it in memory, so, the thought should be often repeated. If the very word ‘adhyayana’ means repeated utterance, the word ‘upāsana’ also means a frequent repetition of thought. Accordingly the blessed bhāṣyakāra, in his commentary on the Vedānta-Sūtras IV. i. i. says as follows:

“Moreover, the words ‘upāsana’ (devotion or contemplation) and ‘nididhyāsana’ (meditation) denote acts involving frequent repetition. Accordingly, indeed, when we say ‘he is devoted to (upāste) the prince’, or ‘he is devoted to guru’, we refer to a person who attends on the prince or guru intently, never swerving from the act. So, when we say ‘parted from her husband she meditates on him,’ we refer to a woman who thinks constantly of the husband and is quite anxious to meet him.

It is true that no definite measure of the frequence of thought is anywhere prescribed in the śruti, as is done in the case of mantras meant for repetition; but the thought should be revolved until the idea that the symbol is the Deity contemplated upon has struck its roots deep down in the mind of the contemplator. Therefore the Vārtikakāra says:

“To approach a thing, viewing it as something else as taught in the scriptures, and there to dwell long till they come to be regarded as one, constitutes what is called upāsana.”^[14]

It is like wise ministers’ having installed a boy prince ön the throne and constantly waiting on him till all people come to recognise his sovereignty and obey him as their king. When once the symbol has come to bo regarded as the Deity, the idea does not again depart from it. To illustrate: the idea of God comes up to the mind on seeing the idol in a ruined temple though no longer worshipped. The results spoken of in the scriptures will accrue to him who has contemplated the symbol till the idea that it is the Deity Himself has taken a firm root in the mind.
 

 

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

The contemplation of gross physical objects through Saṃhitā or conjunction of physical sounds is first taught so that persons  whose minds are habitually bent towards external objects may find an entrance into the subtle truths conveyed by the upaniṣads—(S.)

[2]:

On account of the observance of all duties enjoined ill the scriptures and by the study of the Veda under proscribed conditions— (S.)

[3]:

of the skin.—(A.)

[4]:

The earth, heaven, etc., here stand for the Devatās, the Intelligences functioning in the earth, heaven etc. The material forms are not worthy of worship.—(A.)

[5]:

The special effort.—(A.)

[6]:

Śvetāśvatara-Upaniṣad, 2-10,

[7]:

Op. cit. 3-1-1-1.

[8]:

Op. cit. 3-2-10.

[9]:

Op. cit. 5-1-1.

[10]:

Muṇḍaka Up. 3-2-11.

[11]:

Bṛ.Up. 6-1-12

[12]:

Op. cit. 3-1-1-6.

[13]:

Op. cit. 3-1-1-5,6.

[14]:

Taittirīya-Upaniṣad-Vārtika.