THE EARLIER UPANISHADS
---
On the approximate number of 112 Upanishads, with the exception of the first 13, most of them are of more or less later date. The first 13 are:
| 1. Isha | 2. Kena | 3. Katha | 4. Prashna | 5. Mundaka | 6. Mandukya |
| 7. Taittiriya | 8. Aitareya | 9. Chandogya | 10. Brhadaranyaka | 11. Shvetashvatara | 12. Kausitaki |
| 13. Maitreyi |
The Upanishads are usually attached as appendices to the Aranyakas which are again attached to the Brahmanas.
Some scholars think that the Brahmanas were intended for the house-holders, the Aranyakas for those who in their old age withdrew into the solitude of the forests, and the Upanishads for those who renounced the world to attain ultimate salvation by meditation.
The ancient philosophers of India looked upon the Upanishads as being of an entirely different type from the rest of the Vedic literature as dictating the path of knowledge (Jñana-marga) as opposed to the path of works (karma-murga) which forms the content of the latter.
The Vedic teaching belongs therefore to that of the Karma-marga or the performance of Vedic duties of sacrifice, etc. The Upanishads however do not require the performance of any action, but only reveal the ultimate truth and reality, a knowledge of which at once emancipates a man.
Upanishads are meant for such superior men who are already above worldly or heavenly prosperities, and for whom the Vedic duties have ceased to have any attraction.
Those who perform the Vedic duty belong to a stage inferior to those who no longer care for the fruits of the Vedic duties but are eager for final emancipation, and it is the latter who alone are fit to hear the Upanishads.
The Upanishads are also known by another name Vedanta, as they are believed to be the last portions of the Vedas (veda-anta, end).
They took their names of the different schools or branches (shakha) among which the Vedas were studied.
Thus the Upanishads attached to the Brahmanas of the Aitareya and Kausitaki schools are called respectively Aitareya and Kausitaki Upanishads; so on and so forth. Only the school to which the Svetasvatara belongs cannot be traced, and has probably been lost.
A large number of Upanishads of a comparatively later age were attached to the Atharva-Veda, most of which were named not according to the Vedic schools but according to the subject-matter with which they dealt!. But what interest us are the earlier Upanishads.
The non-Brahmanic influence:
From the frequent episodes in the Upanishads in which the Brahmins are described as having gone to the Kshattriyas (warrior's caste) for the highest knowledge of philosophy, and out of the apparently meaningless speculations of the Brahmanas, it can be said that the new philosophical speculations were born outside the brahmanic sphere. Among the Kshattriyas in general there existed earnest philosophic enquiries which must be regarded as having exerted an important influence in the formation of the Upanishad doctrines.
The Brahman's profoundest wisdom, the doctrine of All-one, which has exercised an unmistakable influence on the intellectual life even of our time, did not have its origin in the circle of Brahmans at all; and took its rise in the ranks of the warrior caste.
Yet if it seems to be fairly conclusive with regard to the fact that the transmigration doctrines, the way of the gods (devayana) and the way of the fathers (pitryana) had originated among the Kshattriyas; it is without any relevancy with regard to the origin of the superior knowledge of Brahman as the true self.
There is thus some probability in the supposition that though the Upanishads are found directly incorporated with the Brahmanas it was not the production of the growth of Brahmanic dogmas alone, but that non-Brahmanic thought as well must have either set the Upanishad doctrines afoot, or have rendered fruitful assistance to their formulation and cultivation, though they achieved their culmination in the hands of the Brahmins.
We know that in the later Vedic hymns some monotheistic conceptions of great excellence were developed, but these differ in their nature from the absolutism of the Upanishads as much as the Ptolemaic and the Copernican systems.
In the Upanishads the position is entirely changed, and the centre of interest there is not in a creator from outside but in the self. The natural development of the monotheistic position of the Vedas could have grown into some form of developed theism, but not into the doctrine that the self was the only reality and that everything else was far below it. There is no relation here of the worshipper and the worshipped and no prayers are offered to it, but the whole quest is of the highest truth, and the true self of man is discovered as the greatest reality.
This change of the mind from the objective to the subjective does not carry with it in the Upanishads any elaborate philosophical discussions, or subtle analysis of mind. It comes there as a matter of direct perception.
The gifted mind of these cultured Vedic Indians was anxious to come to some unity, but logical precision of thought had not developed, and as a result of that we find in the Aranyakas the most grotesque and fanciful unifications of things which to our eyes have little or no connection.
Even when the sacrifices began to be replaced by meditations, the old belief in the power of the sacrifices still remained, and as a result of that we find that in many passages of the Upanishads people are thinking of meditating upon this great force" Brahman" as being identified with diverse symbols, natural objects, parts and functions of the body.
The whole process of Upanishad thought shows that the magic power of sacrifices as associated with Rta (unalterable law) was being abstracted from the sacrifices and conceived as the supreme power.
There are many stories in the Upanishads of the search after the nature of this great power the Brahman, which was at first only imperfectly realized. They identified it with the dominating power of the natural objects of wonder, the sun, the moon, etc. with bodily and mental functions and with various symbolical representations, and deluded themselves for a time with the idea that these were satisfactory. But as these were gradually found inadequate, they came to the final solution, and the doctrine of the inner self of man as being the highest truth the Brahman originated.
Meaning of the word Upanishad:
The word Upanishad is derived from the root sad (to destroy) with the prefix ni (to sit). Upanishad meant originally session, particularly a session consisting of pupils, assembled at a respectful distance round their teacher.
Müller and Deussen, the sanskrit scholars, found that the word meant secret or secret instruction; and found that great injunctions of secrecy are to be observed for the communication of the doctrines, and it is said that it should only be given to a student or pupil who by his supreme moral restraint and noble desires proves himself deserving to hear them.
Sankara however, the great Indian exponent of the Upanishads, derives the word from the root sad (to destroy) and supposes that it is so called because it destroys inborn ignorance and leads to salvation by revealing the right knowledge. The later explanation is more in line with the Samkhya philosophy to come.
The composition and growth of the diverse Upanishads:
The oldest Upanishads are written in prose. Next to these we have some in verses very similar to those that are to be found in classical Sanskrit. They were compiled by 500 B.c.
The earliest and most important are probably those that have been commented upon by Sankara namely Brhadaranyaka, Chandogya, Aitareya, Taittiriya, Isa, Kena, Katha, Prasna, Mundaka and Mandukya.
These Upanishads differ much from one another with regard to their content and methods of exposition. Thus while some of them are busy laying great stress upon the monistic doctrine of the self as the only reality, there are others which lay stress upon the practice of Yoga, asceticism, the cult of Siva, of Vishnu and the philosophy or anatomy of the body, and may thus be respectively called the Yoga, Saiva, Vishnu and Sharira Upanishads.
Interpretation:
Germs of diverse kinds of thoughts are found scattered over the Upanishads which are not worked out in a systematic manner.
But comparing the various systems of Upanishad interpretation we find that the interpretation offered by Sankara very largely represents the view of the general body of the earlier Upanishad doctrines.
It is thus that Vedanta is generally associated with the interpretation of Sankara and Sankara's system of thought is called the Vedanta system, though there are many other systems which put forth their claim as representing the true Vedanta doctrines.
Under these circumstances it is necessary to look upon the Upanishads, not as a systematic treatise, but as a repository of diverse currents of thought - the melting pot in which all later philosophic ideas were still in a state of fusion, though the monistic doctrine of Sankara.
Acknowledging that the Upanishads do not represent a connected system, the reader should take the texts independently and separately and determine their meanings; though keeping an attentive eye on the context in which they appear.
Speculation:
The fundamental idea which runs through the early Upanishads is that underlying the exterior world of change there is an unchangeable reality which is identical with that which underlies
the essence in man.
During the closing period of the Samhita there were people who had risen to the conception of a single creator and controller of the universe, variously called Prajapati, Visvakarman, Purusha, Brahmanaspati and Brahman.
But this divine controller was yet only a deity.
The search as to the nature of this deity began in the Upanishads. Many visible objects of nature such as the sun or the wind on one hand and the various psychological functions in man were tried, but none could render satisfaction to the great ideal that had been aroused. The sages in the Upanishads had already started with the idea that there was a supreme controller or essence presiding over man and the universe. But what was its nature? Could it be identified with any of the deities of Nature, was it a new deity or was it no deity at all? The Upanishads present to us the history of this quest and the results that were achieved.
But this quest had not yet gone out of the Araranyaka ideas and of symbolic (Pratika) forms of worship.
Prana (vital breath) was regarded as the most essential function for the life of man. This recognition of the superiority of prana brought up the meditations on prana, as Brahman, as leading to the most beneficial results.
But also, the exalting characters of omnipresence and eternality akasa (space) were meditated upon as Brahman.
Or again manas and Aditya (sun) were meditated upon as Brahman.
Side by side with these visible material representations of Brahman as the pervading Vayu (wind), or the sun (Aditya,) and the immaterial representation as akasa, manas or prana, we find also the various kinds of meditations as substitutes for actual sacrifice.
Yet, the magical element involved in the discharge of sacrificial duties lingered for a while in the symbolic worship of Brahman in which He was conceived almost as a deity. For the sages were still blinded by the old ritualistic associations, and though meditation had taken the place of sacrifice yet this was hardly adequate for the highest attainment of Brahman.
Unknowability of Brahman and the Negative Method.
The sum and substance of the Upanishad teaching is involved in the equation:
Atman=Brahman
Yajñavalkya said "He the atman (Brahman) is not this, nor this (neti neti). He is inconceivable, for he cannot be conceived, unchangeable, for he is not changed, untouched, for nothing touches him; he cannot suffer by a stroke of the sword, he cannot suffer any injury." He is asat, non-being, for the being which Brahman is, is not to be understood as such being as is known to us by experience; yet he is being, for he alone is supremely real, for the universe subsists by him. We ourselves are but he, and yet we know not what he is. Whatever we can experience, whatever we can express, is limited, but he is the unlimited, the basis of all. "That which is inaudible, intangible, invisible, indestructible, which cannot be tasted, nor smelt, eternal, without beginning or end, greater than the great (mahat), the fixed.
He who knows it is released from the jaws of death."
Space, time and causality do not appertain to him, for he at once forms their essence and transcends them. He is the infinite and the vast, yet the smallest of the small, at once here as there, there as here; no characterisation of him is possible, otherwise than by the denial to him of all empirical attributes, relations and definitions. He is independent of all limitations of space, time, and cause which rules all that is objectively presented, and therefore the empirical
universe.
When Bahva was questioned by Vashkali, he expounded the nature of Brahman to him by maintaining silence.
"Teach me," said Vashkali, "most reverent sir, the nature of Brahman."
Bahva however remained silent. But when the question was put forth a second or third time he answered, "I teach you indeed but you do not understand; the Atman is silence." The way to indicate it is thus by "neti neti," "it is not this, it is not this." We cannot describe it by any positive content which is always limited by conceptual thought.
The Atman doctrine.
In the Rg-Veda Atman denotes, on the one hand the ultimate essence of the universe, and on the other the vital breath in man.
Later on in the Upanishads the word Brahman denotes the ultimate essence of the universe and the word Atman is reserved to denote the inmost essence in man.
The Upanishads are emphatic in their declaration that the two are one and the same.
But what is that Self of man?
- The physical parts (annamaya?.)
- The vital breath (pranamaya atman?.)
- The other self "consisting of will" (manomaya atman?.)
- The self "consisting of consciousness" (vijñanamaya atman?) (within manomaya atman.)
- or behind it, the final essence, the self as pure bliss (anandamaya atman?.)
What the texts say:
"Truly he is the rapture; for whoever gets this rapture becomes blissful.
For who could live, who could breathe if this space (akasa) was not bliss? For it is he who behaves as bliss.
For whoever in that Invisible, Self-surpassing, Unspeakable, Supportless finds fearless support, he really becomes fearless.
But whoever finds even a slight difference, between himself and this Atman there is fear for him."
Again in another place we find that Prajapati said: "The self
(atman) which is free from sin, free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, whose desires are true, whose cogitations are true, that is to be searched for, that is to be enquired; he gets all his desires and all worlds who knows that self."
See the anecdote (how the gods and the demons react.)
As the anecdote shows, they sought such a constant and unchangeable essence in man as was beyond the limits of any change.
This inmost essence has sometimes been described as pure subject-object-less consciousness, the reality, and the bliss.
He is the seer of all seeing, the hearer of all hearing and the knower of all knowledge. He sees but is not seen, hears but is not heard, knows but is not known. He is the light of all lights. He is like a lump of salt, with no inner or outer, which consists through and through entirely of savour; as in truth this Atman has no inner or outer, but consists through and through entirely of knowledge. Bliss is not an attribute of it but it is bliss itself The state of Brahman is thus likened unto the state of dreamless sleep. And he who has reached this bliss is beyond any fear.
The place of Brahman in the Upanishads:
When the empirical aspect of diversity attracts their notice, the Sages affirm it, and yet declare that it is all Brahman. From Brahman it has come forth and to it will it return.
He has himself created it out of himself and then entered into it as its inner controller (antaryamin).
Here is thus a glaring dualistic trait of the world of matter and Brahman as its controller.
In other places we find it asserted most emphatically that these are but names and forms, and when Brahman is known everything else is known.
If we overlook the different shades in the development of the conception of Brahman in the Upanishads and look to the main
currents, we find that the strongest current of thought which has found expression in the majority of the texts is this that:
- the Atman or the Brahman is the only reality and that besides this everything else is unreal.
- The other current of thought which is to be found in many of the texts is the pantheistic creed that identifies the universe with the Atman or Brahman.
- The third current is that of theism which looks upon Brahman as the Lord controlling the world.
The World:
The world is sometimes spoken of in its twofold aspect, the organic and the inorganic.
Brahman desiring to be many created fire (tejas), water (ap) and earth (kshiti). Then the self-existent Brahman entered into these three, and it is by their combination that all other bodies are formed.
In this theory of the threefold division of the primitive elements lies the earliest germ of the later distinction (especially in the Samhya school) of pure infinitesimal substances (tanmatra) and gross elements, and the theory that each gross substance is composed of the atoms of the primary elements.
The theory of causation:
There was practically no systematic theory of causation in the Upanishads.
Yet, some kind of theories of causation have been expounded in the Upanishads in an imperfect manner:
- The first theory talks about empty distinctions of name and form.
Plate, pot, and jug, are only empty distinctions of name and form; for the only thing real in them is the clay.
Brahman, remains ever constant, though it may appear to suffer change as the manifold world outside.
- The second theory, looks upon the effect as the product of a real change wrought in the cause itself through the action and combination of the elements of diversity in it. Thus when the different objects of nature have been spoken of in one place as the product of the combination of the three elements fire, water and earth, the effect signifies a real change produced by their compounding. This is in germ the Parinama theory of causation advocated by the Samkhya school.
Doctrine of Transmigration:
None of the complexities of the karma doctrine which we find later on in more recent developments of Hindu thought can be found in the Upanishads.
The Pitriyana theory is not indeed given up, but it seems only to form a part in the larger scheme of rebirth in other worlds and sometimes in this world too. All the course of these rebirths is effected by the Self itself by its own desires, and if it ceases to desire, it suffers no rebirth and becomes immortal.
The most distinctive feature of this doctrine is this, that it refers to desires as the cause of rebirth and not karma.
The whole scheme is worked out on the principle of desire (kama) and karma only serves as the link between it and the actual effects desired and willed by the person.
Desires (kama) lead to rebirth; whatever desire is involved.
Emancipation:
The doctrine which next attracts our attention in this connection is that of emancipation (mukti). Already we know that the doctrine of Devayana held that those who were faithful and performed asceticism (tapas) went by the way of the gods through successive stages never to return to the world and suffer rebirth.
This could be contrasted with the way of the fathers (pitriyana) where the dead were for a time recompensed in another world and then had to suffer rebirth.
Thus we find that those who are faithful and perform shraddha had a distinctly different type of goal from those who performed ordinary virtues, such as those of a general altruistic nature.
This distinction attains its fullest development in the doctrine of emancipation. Emancipation or Mukti means in the Upanishads the state of infiniteness that a man attains when he knows his own self and thus becomes Brahman.
The ceaseless course of transmigration is only for those who are ignorant. The wise man however who has divested himself of all passions and knows himself to be Brahman, at once becomes Brahman and no bondage of any kind can ever affect him.
The knowledge of the self reveals the fact that all our passions and antipathies, all our limitations of experience, all that is ignoble and small in us, all that is transient and finite in us is false. We" do not know" but are" pure knowledge" ourselves.
We are not limited by anything, for we are the infinite; we do not suffer death, for we are immortal.
Emancipation thus is not a new acquisition, product, an effect, or result of any action, but it always exists as the Truth of our nature.
Thus it is that the true knowledge of self does not lead to emancipation but is emancipation itself.
See Katha Upanishad.
The true self manifests itself in all the processes of our phenomenal existences, but ultimately when it retires back to itself, it can no longer be found in them. It is a state of absolute infinitude of pure intelligence, pure being, and pure blessedness.
*