BRAHMANIC PANTHEISM.--THE UPANISHADS.
In the Vedic hymns man fears the gods, and imagines God. In the
Br[=a]hmanas man subdues the gods, and fears God. In the Upanishads
man ignores the gods, and becomes God.[1]
Such in a word is the theosophic relations between the three periods
represented by the first Vedic Collection, the ritualistic
Br[=a]hmanas, and the philosophical treatises called Upanishads. Yet
if one took these three strata of thought to be quite independent of
each other he would go amiss. Rather is it true that the Br[=a]hmanas
logically continue what the hymns begin; that the Upanishads logically
carry on the thought of the Br[=a]hmanas. And more, for in the oldest
Upanishads are traits that connect this class of writings (if they
were written) directly, and even closely with the Vedic hymns
themselves; so that one may safely assume that the time of the first
Upanishads is not much posterior to that of the latest additions made
to the Vedic collections, though this indicates only that these
additions were composed at a much later period than is generally
supposed.[2] In India no literary period subsides with the rise of its
eventually 'succeeding' period. All the works overlap. Parts of the
Br[=a]hmanas succeed, sometimes with the addition of whole books,
their proper literary successors, the Upanishads. Vedic hymns are
composed in the Brahmanic period.[3] The prose S[=u]tras, which, in
general, are earlier, sometimes post-date metrical Ç[=a]stra-rules.
Thus it is highly probable that, whereas the Upanishads began before
the time of Buddha, the Çatapatha Br[=a]hmana (if not others of this
class) continued to within two or three centuries of our era; that the
legal S[=u]tras were, therefore, contemporary with part of the
Br[=a]hmanic period;[4] and that, in short, the end of the Vedic
period is so knit with the beginning of the Br[=a]hmanic, while the
Br[=a]hmanic period is so knit with the rise of the Upanishads,
S[=u]tras, epics, and Buddhism, that one cannot say of any one: 'this
is later,' 'this is earlier'; but each must be taken only for a phase
of indefinitely dated thought, exhibited on certain lines. It must
also be remembered that by the same class of works a wide geographical
area may be represented; by the Br[=a]hmanas, west and east; by the
S[=u]tras, north and south; by the Vedic poems, northwest and east to
Benares (AV.); by the epics, all India, centred about the holy middle
land near Delhi.
The meaning of Upanishad as used in the compositions themselves, is
either, as it is used to-day, the title of a philosophical work; that
of knowledge derived from esoteric teaching; or the esoteric teaching
itself. Thus _brahma upanishad_ is the secret doctrine of _brahma_,
and 'whoever follows this _upanishad_' means whoever follows this
doctrine. This seems, however, to be a meaning derived from the nature
of the Upanishads themselves, and we are almost inclined to think that
the true significance of the word was originally that in which alone
occurs, in the early period, the combination _upa-ni-[s.]ad_, and this
is purely external: "he makes the common people _upa-ni-s[=a]din,"
i.e_., 'sitting below' or 'subject,' it is said in _Çat. Br_. ix. 4.
3. 3 (from the literal meaning of 'sitting below').[5] Instead,
therefore, of seeing in _upan[=i]sad_, Upanishad, the idea of a
session, of pupils sitting down to hear instruction (the prepositions
and verb are never used in this sense), it may be that the Upanishads
were at first _subsidiary_ works of the ritualistic Br[=a]hmanas
contained in the [=A]ranyakas or Forest Books, that is, appendices to
the Br[=a]hmana, ostensibly intended for the use of pious
forest-hermits (who had passed beyond the need of sacrifice); and
this, in point of fact, is just what they were; till their growth
resulted in their becoming an independent branch of literature. The
usual explanation of 'Upanishad,' however, is that it represents the
instruction given to the pupil 'sitting under' the teacher.
Although at present between two and three hundred Upanishads are
known, at least by name, to exist, yet scarcely a dozen appear to be
of great antiquity. Some of these are integral parts of Br[=a]hmanas,
and apparently were added to the ritualistic works at an early
period.[6]
While man's chief effort in the Brahmanic period seems to be by
sacrifice and penance to attain happiness hereafter, and to get the
upper hand of divine powers; while he recognizes a God, who, though
supreme, has yet, like the priest himself, attained his supremacy by
sacrifice and penance; while he dreams of a life hereafter in heavenly
worlds, in the realm of light, though hardly seeking to avoid a
continuation of earthly re-births; nevertheless he frees himself at
times from ritualistic observances sufficiently to continue the
questioning asked by his Vedic ancestors, and to wonder whither his
immortal part is definitively going, and whether that spirit of his
will live independently, or be united with some higher power, such as
the sun or Brahm[=a].
The philosophical writings called Upanishads[7] take up this question
in earnest, but the answer is already assured, and the philosophers,
or poets, of this period seek less to prove the truth than to expound
it. The soul of man will not only join a heavenly Power. It is part of
that Power. Man's spirit (self) is the world-spirit. And what is this?
While all the Upanishads are at one in answering the first question,
they are not at one in the method by which they arrive at the same
result. There is no systematic philosophy; but a tentative, and more
or less dogmatic, logic. In regard to the second question they are
still less at one; but in general their answer is that the
world-spirit is All, and everything is a part of It or Him. Yet,
whether that All is personal or impersonal, and what is the relation
between spirit and matter, this is still an unsettled point.
The methods and results of this half-philosophical literature will
most easily be understood by a few examples. But, before these are
given, it will be necessary to emphasize the colloquial and scrappy
nature of the teaching. Legend, parable, ritualistic absurdities,
belief in gods, denial of gods, belief in heaven, denial of heaven,
are all mingled, and for a purpose. For some men are able, and some
are unable, to receive the true light of knowledge. But man's fate
depends on his knowledge. The wise man becomes hereafter what his
knowledge has prepared him to be. Not every spirit is fitted for
immortality, but only the spirit of them that have wisely desired it,
or, rather, not desired it; for every desire must have been
extinguished before one is fitted for this end. Hence, with advancing
belief in absorption and pantheism, there still lingers, and not as a
mere superfluity, the use of sacrifice and penance. Rites and the
paraphernalia of religion are essential till one learns that they are
unessential. Desire will be gratified till one learns that the most
desirable thing is lack of desire. But so long as one desires even the
lack of desire he is still in the fetters of desire. The way is long
to the extinction of emotion, but its attainment results in happiness
that is greater than delight; in peace that surpasses joy.
In the exposition of this doctrine the old gods are retained as
figures. They are not real gods. But they are existent forms of God.
They are portions of the absolute, a form of the Eternal, even as man
is a form of the same. Absolute being, again, is described as
anthropomorphic. 'This is that' under a certain form. Incessantly made
is the attempt to explain the identity of the absolute with phenomena.
The power _brahma_, which is originally applied to prayer, is now
taken as absolute being, and this, again, must be equated with the
personal spirit (ego, self, _[=a]tm[=a]_). One finds himself back in
the age of Vedic speculation when he reads of prayer (or penance) and
power as one. For, as was shown above, the Rig Veda already recognizes
that prayer is power. There the word for power, _brahma_, is used only
as equivalent of prayer, and Brihaspati or Brahmanaspati is literally
the 'god of power,' as he is interpreted by the priests. The
significance of the other great word of this period, namely
_[=a]tm[=a]_, is not at all uncertain, but to translate it is
difficult. It is breath, spirit, self, soul. Yet, since in its
original sense it corresponds to spiritus (comparable to athmen), the
word spirit, which also signifies the real person, perhaps represents
it best. We shall then render _brahma_ and _[=a]tm[=a]_ by the
absolute and the ego or spirit, respectively; or leave them, which is
perhaps the best way, in their native form. The physical breath,
_pr[=a]na,_ is occasionally used just like _[=a]tm[=a]._ Thus it is
said that all the gods are one god, and this is _pr[=a]na,_ identical
with _brahma_ (Brihad [=A]ranyaka Upanishad, 3.9.9); or _pr[=a]na_ is
so used as to be the same with spirit, though, on the other hand,
'breath is born of spirit' (Praçna Up. 3.3), just as in the Rig Veda
(above) it is said that all comes from the breath of God.
One of the most instructive of the older Upanishads is the
Ch[=a]ndogya. A sketch of its doctrines will give a clearer idea of
Upanishad philosophy than a chapter of disconnected excerpts:
All this (universe) is _brahma_. Man has intelligent force (or will).
He, after death, will exist in accordance with his will in life. This
spirit in (my) heart is that mind-making, breath-bodied, light-formed,
truth-thoughted, ether-spirited One, of whom are all works, all
desires, all smells, and all tastes; who comprehends the universe, who
speaks not and is not moved; smaller than a rice-corn, smaller than a
mustard-seed, ... greater than earth, greater than heaven. This
(universal being) is my ego, spirit, and is _brahma,_ force (absolute
being). After death I shall enter into him (3.14).[8] This all is
breath (==spirit in 3.15.4).
After this epitome of pantheism follows a ritualistic bit:
Man is sacrifice. Four and twenty years are the morning libation; the
next four and forty, the mid-day libation; the next eight and forty,
the evening libation. The son of Itar[=a], knowing this, lived one
hundred and sixteen years. He who knows this lives one hundred and
sixteen years (3.16).
Then, for the abolition of all sacrifice, follows a chapter which
explains that man may sacrifice symbolically, so that, for example,
gifts to the priests (a necessary adjunct of a real sacrifice) here
become penance, liberality, rectitude, non-injury, truth-speaking
(_ib._ 17. 4). There follows then the identification of _brahma_ with
mind, sun, breath, cardinal points, ether, etc, even puns being
brought into requisition, _Ka_ is _Kha_ and _Kha_ is _Ka_ (4. 10.
5);[9] earth, fire, food, sun, water, stars, man, are _brahma_, and
_brahma_ is the man seen in the moon (4. 12. I). And now comes the
identity of the impersonal _brahma_ with the personal spirit. The man
seen in the eye is the spirit; this is the immortal, unfearing
_brahma_ (4. 15. I = 8. 7. 4). He that knows this goes after death to
light, thence to day, thence to the light moon, thence to the season,
thence to the year, thence to the sun, thence to the moon, thence to
lightning; thus he becomes divine, and enters _brahma_. They that go
on this path of the gods that conducts to _brahma_ do not return to
human conditions _(ib._ 15. 6).
But the Father-god of the Br[=a]hmanas is still a temporary creator,
and thus he appears now (_ib._ 17): The Father-god brooded over[10]
the worlds, and from them extracted essences, fire from earth, wind
from air, sun from sky. These three divinities (the triad, fire, wind,
and sun) he brooded over, and from them extracted essences, the Rig
Veda from fire, the Yajur Veda from wind, the S[=a]ma Veda from sun.
In the preceding the northern path of them that know the absolute
(_brahma_) has been described, and it was said that they return no
more to earth. Now follows the southern path of them that only partly
know _brahma_:
"He that knows the oldest, _jye[s.]tham_ and the best, _çre[s]tham,_
becomes the oldest and the best. Now breath is oldest and best" (then
follows the famous parable of the senses and breath, 5. 1. I). This
(found elsewhere) is evidently regarded as a new doctrine, for, after
the deduction has been made that, because a creature can live without
senses, and even without mind, but cannot live without breath,
therefore the breath is the 'oldest and best,' the text continues, 'if
one told this to a dry stick, branches would be produced and leaves
put forth' (5. 2. 3).[11]] The path of him that partly knows the
_brahma_ which is expressed in breath, etc, is as follows: He goes to
the moon, and, when his good works are used up, he (ultimately mist)
rains down, becoming seed, and begins life over again on earth, to
become like the people who eat him (5. 10. 6); they that are good
become priests, warriors, or members of the third estate; while the
bad become dogs, hogs, or members of the low castes.[12] A story is
now told, instructive as illustrating the time. Five great doctors of
the law came together to discuss what is Spirit, what is _brahma_. In
the end they are taught by a king that the universal Spirit is one's
own spirit (5. 18. 1).
It is interesting to see that, although the Rig Veda distinctly says
that 'being was born of not-being' (_ásatas sád aj[=a]yata_, X. 72.
3),[13] yet not-being is here derived quite as emphatically from
being. For in the philosophical explanation of the universe given in
6. 2. 1 ff. one reads: "Being alone existed in the beginning, one, and
without a second. Others say 'not-being alone' ... but how could being
be born of not-being? Being alone existed in the beginning."[14] This
being is then represented as sentient. "It saw (and desired), 'may I
be many,' and sent forth fire (or heat); fire (or heat) desired and
produced water; water, food (earth); with the living spirit the
divinity entered fire, water, and earth" (6. 3). As mind comes
from food, breath from water, and speech from fire, all that makes a
man is thus derived from the (true) being (6. 7. 6); and when one dies
his speech is absorbed into mind, his mind into breath, his breath
into fire (heat), and heat into the highest godhead (6. 8. 7). This is
the subtle spirit, that is the Spirit, that is the True, and this is
the spirit of man. Now comes the grand conclusion of the Ch[=a]ndogya.
He who knows the ego escapes grief. What is the ego? The Vedas are
names, and he that sees _brahma_ in the Vedas is indeed (partly) wise;
but speech is better than a name; mind is better than speech; will is
better than mind; meditation, better than will; reflection, than
meditation; understanding, than reflection; power, than understanding;
food, than power; water, than food; heat (fire), than water; ether,
than heat; memory, than ether; hope, than memory; breath (=spirit),
than hope. In each let one see _brahma_; ego in All. Who knows this is
supreme in knowledge; but more supreme in knowledge is he that knows
that in true (being) is the highest being. True being is happiness;
true being is ego; ego is all; ego is the absolute.[15]
The relativity o£ divinity is the discovery of the Upanishads. And the
relativity of happiness hereafter is the key-note of their religious
philosophy. Pious men are of three classes, according to the completed
system. Some are good men, but they do not know enough to appreciate,
intellectually or spiritually, the highest. Let this class meditate on
the Vedas. They desire wealth, not freedom. The second class wish,
indeed, to emancipate themselves; but to do so step by step; not to
reach absolute _brahma_, but to live in bliss hereafter. Let these
worship the Spirit as physical life. They will attain to the
bliss of the realm of light, the realm of the personal creator. But
the highest class, they that wish to emancipate themselves at once,
know that physical life is but a form of spiritual life; that the
personal creator is but a form of the Spirit; that the Spirit is
absolute _brahma_; and that in reaching this they attain to
immortality. These, then, are to meditate on spirit as the highest
Spirit, that is, the absolute. To fear heaven as much as hell, to know
that knowledge is, after all, the key to _brahma_; that _brahma_ is
knowledge; this is the way to emancipation. The gods are; but they are
forms of the ego, and their heaven is mortal. It is false to deny the
gods. Indra and the Father-god exist, just as men exist, as transient
forms of _brahma_. Therefore, according to the weakness or strength of
a man's mind and heart (desire) is he fitted to ignore gods and
sacrifice. To obtain _brahma_ his desires must be weak, his knowledge
strong; but sacrifice is not to be put away as useless. The
disciplinary teaching of the sacrifice is a necessary preparation for
highest wisdom. It is here that the Upanishads, which otherwise are to
a great extent on the highway to Buddhism, practically contrast with
it. Buddhism ignores the sacrifice and the stadia in a priest's life.
The Upanishads retain them, but only to throw them over at the end
when one has learned not to need them. Philosophically there is no
place for the ritual in the Upanishad doctrine; but their teachers
stood too much under the dominion of the Br[=a]hmanas to ignore the
ritual. They kept it as a means of perfecting the knowledge of what
was essential.
So 'by wisdom' it is said 'one gets immortality.' The Spirit develops
gradually in man; by means of the mortal he desires the immortal;
whereas other animals have only hunger and thirst as a kind of
understanding, and they are reborn according to their knowledge as
beasts again. Such is the teaching of another of the Upanishads, the
[=A]itareya [=A]ranyaka.
This Upanishad contains some rather striking passages: "Whatever man
attains, he desires to go beyond it; if he should reach heaven itself
he would desire to go beyond it" (2. 3. 3. 1). "_Brahma_ is the A,
thither goes the ego" (2. 3. 8. 7). "A is the whole of Speech, and
Speech is Truth, and Truth is Spirit" (2. 3. 6. 5-14).[16] "The Spirit
brooded over the water, and form (matter) was born" (2. 4. 3. 1 ff.);
so physically water is the origin of all things" (2. 1. 8. 1).[17]
"Whatever belongs to the father belongs to the son, whatever belongs
to the son belongs to the father" (_ib_.). "Man has three births: he
is born of his mother, reborn in the person of his son, and finds his
highest birth in death" (2. 5).
In the exposition of these two Upanishads one gets at once the sum of
them all. The methods, the illustrations, even the doctrines, differ
in detail; but in the chief end and object of the Upanishads, and in
the principle of knowledge as a means of attaining _brahma_, they are
united. This it is that causes the refutation of the Vedic 'being from
not-being.' It is even said in the [=A]itareya that the gods
worshipped breath (the spirit) as being and so became gods (great);
while devils worshipped spirit as not-being, and hence became
(inferior) devils (2. 1. 8. 6).
It was noticed above that a king instructed priests. This interchange
of the rôles of the two castes is not unique. In the K[=a]ush[=i]taki
Upanishad (4. 19), occurs another instance of a warrior teaching a
Brahman. This, with the familiar illustration of a Gandh[=a]ra
(Kandahar) man, the song of the Kurus, and the absence of Brahmanic
literature as such in the list of works, cited vii. 1, would indicate
that the Ch[=a]ndogya was at least as old as the Br[=a]hmana
literature.[18]
In their present form several differences remain to be pointed out
between the Vedic period and that of the Upanishads. The goal of the
soul, the two paths of gods and of _brahma_, have been indicated. As
already explained, the road to the absolute _brahma_ lies beyond the
path to the conditioned _brahma_. Opposed to this is the path that
leads to the world of heaven, whence, when good works have been
exhausted, the spirit descends to a new birth on earth. The course of
this second path is conceived to be the dark half of the moon, and so
back to man. Both roads lead first to the moon, then one goes on to
_brahma_, the other returns to earth. It will be seen that good works
are regarded as buoying a man up for a time, till, like gas in a
balloon, they lose their force, and he sinks down again. What then
becomes of the virtue of a man who enters the absolute _brahma,_ and
descends no more? He himself goes to the world where there is "no
sorrow and no snow," where he lives forever (_Brihad [=A]ran_. 5. 10);
but "his beloved relations get his virtue, and the relations he does
not love get his evil" (_K[=a]ush[=i]t. Up_. 1. 4). In this Upanishad
fire, sun, moon, and lightning die out, and reappear as _brahma_. This
is the doctrine of the _Götterdämmerung_, and succession of aeons with
their divinities (2. 12). Here again is it distinctly stated that
_pr[=a]na_, breath, is _brahma_; that is, spirit is the absolute (2.
13).
What becomes of them that die ignorant of the ego? They go either to
the worlds of evil spirits, which are covered with darkness--the same
antithesis of light and darkness, as good and evil, that was seen in
the Br[=a]hmanas--or are reborn on earth again like the wicked
(_[=I]ç[=a]_, 3).
It is to be noted that at times all the parts of a man are
said to become immortal. For just as different rivers enter the ocean
and their names and forms are lost in it, so the sixteen parts of a
man sink into the godhead and he becomes without parts and immortal
(_Praçna Up_. 6. 5); a purely pantheistic view of absorption, in
distinction from the Vedic view of heaven, which latter, in the form
of immortal joy hereafter, still lingers in the earlier Upanishads.
It is further to be observed as the crowning point of these
speculations that, just as the bliss of emancipation must not be
desired, although it is desirable, so too, though knowledge is the
fundamental condition of emancipation, yet is delight in the true a
fatal error: "They that revere what is not knowledge enter into blind
darkness; they that delight in knowledge come as it were into still
greater darkness" (_Iç[=a]_, 9). Here, what is not real knowledge
means good works, sacrifice, etc. But the sacrifice is not discarded.
To those people capable only of attaining to rectitude, sacrifices,
and belief in gods there is given some bliss hereafter; but to him
that is risen above this, who knows the ego (Spirit) and real being,
such bliss is no bliss. His bliss is union with the Spirit.
This is the completion of Upanishad philosophy. Before it is a stage
where bliss alone, not absorption, is taught.[19] But what is the ego,
spirit or self (_[=a]tm[=a]_)? First of all it is conscious; next it
is not the Person, for the Person is produced by the _[=a]tm[=a]_.
Since this Person is the type of the personal god, it is evident that
the ego is regarded as lying back of personality. Nevertheless, the
teachers sometimes stop with the latter. The developed view is that
the immortality of the personal creator is commensurate only with that
of the world which he creates. It is for this reason that in the
Mundaka (1. 2. 10) it is said that fools regard fulfillment of desire
in heavenly happiness as the best thing; for although they have their
'reward in the top of heaven, yet, when the elevation caused by their
good works ends, as it will end, when the buoyant power of good works
is exhausted, then they drop down to earth again. Hence, to worship
the creator as the _[=a]tm[=a]_ is indeed productive of temporary
pleasure, but no more. "If a man worship another divinity,
_devat[=a]_, with the idea that he and the god are different, he does
not know" (_Brihad [=A]ran. Up_. 1. 4. 10). "Without passion and
without parts" is the _brahma (Mund_. 2. 2. 9). The further doctrine,
therefore, that all except _brahma_ is delusion is implied here, and
the "extinction of gods in _brahma_" is once or twice formulated.[20]
The fatal error of judgment is to imagine that there is in absolute
being anything separate from man's being. When personified, this being
appears as the supreme Person, identical with the ego, who is lord of
what has been and what will be. By perceiving this controlling spirit
in one's own spirit (or self) one obtains eternal bliss; "when
desires cease, the mortal becomes immortal; he attains _brahma_ here"
in life (_Katha Up_. 2. 5. 12; 6. 14; _Br. [=A]ran. Up_. 4. 4. 7).
How inconsistent are the teachings of the Upanishads in regard to
cosmogonic and eschatological matters will be evident if one contrast
the statements of the different tracts not only with those of other
writings of the same sort, but even with other statements in the same
Upanishads. Thus the Mundaka teaches first that Brahm[=a], the
personal creator, made the world and explained _brahma_ (1. 1. 1). It
then defines _brahma_ as the Imperishable, which, like a spider, sends
out a web of being and draws it in again (_ib_. 6, 7). It states with
all distinctness that the (neuter) _brahma_ comes from The (masculine)
One who is all-wise, all-knowing (_ib_. 9). This heavenly Person is
the imperishable ego; it is without form; higher than the imperishable
(1. 2. 10 ff.; 2. 1. 2); greater than the great (3. 2. 8). Against
this is then set (2. 2. 9) the great being _brahma_, without passions
or parts, _i.
e_., without intelligence such as was predicated of the
_[=a]tm[=a]_; and (3. 1. 3) then follows the doctrine of the personal
'Lord, who is the maker, the Person, who has his birth in _brahma'
(purusho brahmayonis_). That this Upanishad is pantheistic is plain
from 3. 2. 6, where Ved[=a]nta and Yoga are named. According to this
tract the wise go to _brahma_ or to ego (3. 2. 9 and 1. 2. 11), while
fools go to heaven and return again.
On the same plane stands the [=I]ç[=a], where _[=a]tm[=a]_, ego,
Spirit, is the True, the Lord, and is in the sun. Opposed to each
other here are 'darkness' and 'immortality,' as fruit, respectively,
of ignorance and wisdom.
In the K[=a]ush[=i]taki Upanishad, taken with the meaning put into it
by the commentators, the wise man goes to a very different sort of
_brahma_--one where he is met by nymphs, and rejoices in a kind of
heaven. This _brahma_ is of two sorts, absolute and conditioned; but
it is ultimately defined as 'breath.' Whenever it is convenient,
'breath' is regarded by the commentators as ego, 'spirit'; but one can
scarcely escape the conviction that in many passages 'breath' was
meant by the speaker to be taken at its face value. It is the vital
power. With this vital power (breath or spirit) one in dreamless sleep
unites. Indra has nothing higher to say than that he is breath
(spirit), conscious and immortal. Eventually the soul after death
comes to Indra, or gains the bright heaven. But here too the doctrine
of the dying out of the gods is known (as in _T[=a]tt_. 3. 10. 4).
Cosmogonically all here springs from water (1. 4, 6, 7; 2. 1, 12; 3.
1, 2; 4. 20).
Most striking are the contradictions in the Brihad [=A]ranyaka: "In
the beginning there was only nothing; this (world) was covered with
death, that is hunger;[21] he desired," etc. (1. 2. 1). "In the
beginning there was only ego (_[=a]tm[=a])." [=A]tm[=a]_ articulated
"I am," and (finding himself lonely and unhappy) divided himself into
male and female,[22] whence arose men, etc. (1. 4. 1). Again: "In the
beginning there was only _brahma_; this (neuter) knew _[=a]tm[=a] ...
brahma_ was the one and only ... it created" (1. 4. 10-11); followed
immediately by "he created" (12). And after this, in 17, one is
brought back to "in the beginning there was only _[=a]tm[=a]_; he
desired 'let me have a wife.'"
In 2. 3. 1 ff. the explicitness of the differences in _brahma_ makes
the account of unusual value. It appears that there are two forms of
_brahma_, one is mortal, with form; the other is immortal, without
form. Whatever is other than air and the space between (heaven and
earth) is mortal and with form. This is being, its essence is in the
sun. On the other hand, the essence of the immortal is the person in
the circle (of the sun). In man's body breath and ether are the
immortal, the essence of which is the person in the eye. There is a
visible and invisible _brahma ([=a]tm[=a])_; the real _brahma_ is
incomprehensible and is described only by negations (3. 4. 1; 9. 26).
The highest is the Imperishable (_neuter_), but this sees, hears, and
knows. It is in this that ether (as above) is woven (3. 8. 11). After
death the wise man goes to the world of the gods (1. 5. 16); he
becomes the _[=a]tm[=a]_ of all beings, just like that deity (1. 5.
20); he becomes identical ('how can one know the knower?'
_vijñ[=a]tar_) in 2. 4. 12-13; and according to 3. 2. 13, the doctrine
of _sams[=a]ra_ is extolled ("they talked of _karma_, extolled _karma_
secretly"), as something too secret to be divulged easily, even to
priests.
That different views are recognized is evident from _Taitt_. 2. 6: "If
one knows _brahma_ as _asat_ he becomes only _asat_ (non-existence);
if he knows that '_brahma_ is' (_i.e._, a _sad brahma_), people know
him as thence existing." Personal _[=a]tm[=a]_ is here insisted on
("He wished 'may I be many'"); and from _[=a]tm[=a]_, the conscious
_brahma_, in highest heaven, came the ether (2. 1, 6). Yet,
immediately afterwards: "In the beginning was the non-existent; thence
arose the existent; and That made for himself an ego (spirit,
conscious life, _[=a]tm[=a]; tad [=a]tm[=a]nain svayam akuruta_, 2.
7). In man _brahma_ is the sun-_brahma_. Here too one finds the
_brahma[n.]a[h.] parimaras_ (3. 10. 4 = K[=a]ush[=i]t. 2. 12,
_d[=a]iva_), or extinction of gods in _brahma_. But what that _brahma_
is, except that it is bliss, and that man after death reaches 'the
bliss-making _[=a]tm[=a],_' it is impossible to say (3. 6; 2. 8).
Especially as the departed soul 'eats and sits down singing' in heaven
(3. 10. 5).
The greatest discrepancies in eschatology occur perhaps in the
[=A]itareya [=A]ranyaka. After death one either "gets _brahma_" (i. 3.
1. 2), "comes near to the immortal spirit" (1. 3. 8. 14), or goes to
the "heavenly world." Knowledge here expressly conditions the
hereafter; so much so that it is represented not (as above) that fools
go to heaven and return, but that all, save the very highest, are to
recognize a personal creator (Praj[=a]pati) in breath (=ego=_brahma_),
and then they will "go to the heavenly world" (2. 3. 8. 5), "become
the sun" (2. 1. 8. 14), or "go to gods" (2. 2. 4. 6). Moreover after
the highest wisdom has been revealed, and the second class of men has
been disposed of, the author still returns to the 'shining sky,'
_svarga_, as the best promise (3). Sinners are born again (2. 1. 1. 5)
on earth, although hell is mentioned (2. 3. 2. 5). The origin of world
is water, as usual (2. 1. 8. 1). The highest teaching is that all was
_[=a]tm[=a],_ who sent forth worlds (_lok[=a]n as[r.]jata_), and
formed the Person (as guardian of worlds), taking him from waters.
Hence _[=a]tm[=a],_ Praj[=a]pati (of the second-class thinkers), and
_brahma_ are the same. Knowledge is _brahma_ (2. 4. 1. 1; 6. 1. 5-7).
In the Kena, where the best that can be said in regard to _brahma_ is
that he is _tadvana_, the one that 'likes this' (or, perhaps, is 'like
this'), there is no absorption into a world-spirit. The wise 'become
immortal'; 'by knowledge one gets immortality'; 'who knows this stands
in heaven' (1. 2; 2. 4; 4. 9). The general results are about those
formulated by Whitney in regard to the Katha: knowledge gives
continuation of happiness in heaven; the punishment of the unworthy is
to continue _sams[=a]ra_, the round of rebirths. Hell is not mentioned
in the [=A]itareya Upanishad itself but in the [=A]ranyaka[23] (2. 3.
2. 5). That, however, a union with the universal _[=a]tm[=a]_ (as well
as heaven) is desired, would seem to be the case from several of the
passages cited above, notably Brihad [=A]ran., i. 5. 20 (_sa
eva[.m]vit sarve[s.][=a]m bh[=u]t[=a]n[=a]m [=a]tm[=a] bhavati,
Yath[=a] i[s.][=a] devat[=a]ivam sa_); 'he that knows this becomes the
_[=a]tm[=a]_ of all creatures, as is that divinity so is he'; though
this is doubtless the _[=a]nandamaya [=a]tm[=a]_, or joy-making Spirit
(T[=a]itt. 2. 8).
Again two forms of _brahma_ are explained (M[=a]it. Up. 6. 15 ff.):
There are two forms of _brahma_, time and not-time. That which was
before the sun is not-time and has no parts. Time and parts begin with
the sun. Time is the Father-god, the Spirit. Time makes and dissolves
all in the Spirit. He knows the Veda who knows into what Time itself
is dissolved. This manifest time is the ocean of creatures. But
_brahma_ exists before and after time.[24]
As an example of the best style of the Upanishads we will cite a
favorite passage (given no less than four times in various versions)
where the doctrine of absorption is most distinctly taught under the
form of a tale. It is the famous
DIALOGUE OF Y[=A]JÑAVALKYA AND M[=A]ITREY[=I].[25]
Y[=a]jñavalkya had two wives, M[=a]itrey[=i] and K[=a]ty[=a]yani. Now
M[=a]itrey[=i] was versed in holy knowledge (_brahma_), but
K[=a]ty[=a]yani had only such knowledge as women have. But when
Y[=a]jñavalkya was about to go away into the forest (to become a
hermit), he said: 'M[=a]itrey[=i], I am going away from this
place. Behold, I will make a settlement between thee and that
K[=a]ty[=a]yani.' Then said M[=a]itrey[=i]: 'Lord, if this whole earth
filled with wealth were mine, how then? should I be immortal by reason
of this wealth?' 'Nay,' said Y[=a]jñavalkya. 'Even as is the life of
the rich would be thy life; by reason of wealth one has no hope of
immortality.' Then said M[=a]itrey[=i]: 'With what I cannot be
immortal, what can I do with that? whatever my Lord knows even that
tell me.' And Y[=a]jñavalkya said: 'Dear to me thou art, indeed, and
fondly speakest. Therefore I will explain to thee and do thou regard
me as I explain.' And he said: 'Not for the husband's sake is a
husband dear, but for the ego's sake is the husband dear. Not for the
wife's sake is a wife dear; but for the ego's sake is a wife dear; not
for the son's sake are sons dear, but for the ego's sake are sons
dear; not for wealth's sake is wealth dear, but for the ego's sake is
wealth dear; not for the sake of the Brahman caste is the Brahman
caste dear, but for the sake of the ego is the Brahman caste dear; not
for the sake of the Warrior caste is the Warrior caste dear, but for
love of the ego is the Warrior caste dear; not for the sake of the
worlds are worlds dear, but for the sake of the ego are worlds dear;
not for the sake of gods are gods dear, but for the ego's sake are
gods dear; not for the sake of _bh[=u]ts_ (spirits) are _bh[=u]ts_
dear, but for the ego's sake are _bhuts_ dear; not for the sake of
anything is anything dear, but for love of one's self (ego) is
anything (everything) dear; the ego (self) must be seen, heard,
apprehended, regarded, M[=a]itrey[=i], for with the seeing, hearing,
apprehending, and regarding of the ego the All is known.... Even as
smoke pours out of a fire lighted with damp kindling wood, even so out
of the Great Being is blown out all that which is, Rig Veda, Yajur
Veda, S[=a]ma Veda, Atharva (Angiras) Veda, Stories, Tales, Sciences,
Upanishads, food, drink, sacrifices; all creatures that exist are
blown (breathed) out of this one (Great Spirit) alone. As in the
ocean all the waters have their meeting-place; as the skin is the
meeting-place of all touches; the tongue, of all tastes; the
nose, of all smells; the mind, of all precepts; the heart, of all
knowledges; ... as salt cast into water is dissolved so that one
cannot seize it, but wherever one tastes it is salty, so this
Great Being, endless, limitless, is a mass of knowledge. It arises out
of the elements and then disappears in them. After death there is no
more consciousness.[26] I have spoken.' Thus said Y[=a]jñavalkya. Then
said M[=a]itrey[=i]: 'Truly my Lord has bewildered me in saying that
after death there is no more consciousness.' And Y[=a]jñavalkya said:
'I say nothing bewildering, but what suffices for understanding. For
where there is as it were duality (_dv[=a]itam_), there one sees,
smells, hears, addresses, notices, knows another; but when all the
universe has become mere ego, with what should one smell, see, hear,
address, notice, know any one (else)? How can one know him through
whom he knows this all, how can he know the knower (as something
different)? The ego is to be described by negations alone, the
incomprehensible, imperishable, unattached, unfettered; the ego
neither suffers nor fails. Thus, M[=a]itrey[=i], hast thou been
instructed. So much for immortality.' And having spoken thus
Y[=a]jñavalkya went away (into the forest).
Returning to the Upanishad, of which an outline was given in the
beginning of this chapter, one finds a state of things which, in
general, may be said to be characteristic of the whole Upanishad
period. The same vague views in regard to cosmogony and eschatology
obtain in all save the outspoken sectarian tracts, and the same
uncertainty in regard to man's future fate prevails in this whole
cycle.[27] A few extracts will show this. According to the
Ch[=a]ndogya (4. 17. 1), a personal creator, the old Father-god of the
Br[=a]hmanas, Praj[=a]pati, made the elements proceed from the worlds
he had 'brooded' over (or had done penance over, _abhyatapat_). In 3.
19. 1, not-being was first; this became being (with the mundane egg,
etc.). In sharp contradiction (6. 2. 1): 'being was the first thing,
it willed,' etc., a conscious divinity, as is seen in _ib_. 3. 2,
where it is a 'deity,' producing elements as 'deities' (_ib._ 8. 6)
which it enters 'with the living _[=a]tm[=a]_,' and so develops names
and forms (so _T[=a]itt_. 2. 7). The latter is the prevailing view of
the Upanishad. In 1. 7. 5 ff. the _[=a]tm[=a]_ is the same with the
universal _[=a]tm[=a]_; in 3. 12. 7, the _brahma_ is the same with
ether without and within, unchanging; in 3. 13. 7, the 'light above
heaven' is identical with the light in man; in 3. 14. 1, all is
_brahma_ (neuter), and this is an intelligent universal spirit. Like
the ether is the _[=a]tm[=a]_ in the heart, this is _brahma_ (_ib_. 2
ff.); in 4. 3. air and breath are the two ends (so in the argument
above, these are immortal as distinguished from all else); in 4. 10. 5
_yad v[=a]v[=a] ka[.m] tad eva kham_ (_brahma_ is ether); in 4. 15. 1,
the ego is _brahma_; in 5. 18. 1 the universal ego is identified with
the particular ego (_[=a]tm[=a]_); in 6. 8 the ego is the True, with
which one unites in dreamless sleep; in 6. 15. 1, into _par[=a]
devat[=a]_ or 'highest divinity' enters man's spirit, like salt in
water (_ib_. 13). In 7. 15-26, a view but half correct is stated to be
that 'breath' is all, but it is better to know that _yo bh[=u]m[=a]_
_tad am[r.]tam_, the immortal (all) is infinity, which rests in its
own greatness, with a corrective 'but perhaps it doesn't' (_yadi v[=a]
na_). This infinity is ego and _[=a]tm[=a]_.[28]
What is the reward for knowing this? One obtains worlds, unchanging
happiness, _brahma_; or, with some circumnavigation, one goes to the
moon, and eventually reaches _brahma_ or obtains the worlds of the
blessed (5. 10. 10). The round of existence, _sams[=a]ra_, is
indicated at 6. 16, and expressly stated in 5. 10. 7 (insects have
here a third path). Immortality is forcibly claimed: 'The living one
dies not' (6. 11. 3). He who knows the sections 7. 15 to 26 becomes
_[=a]tm[=a]nanda_ and "lord of all worlds"; whereas an incorrect view
gives perishable worlds. In one Upanishad there is a verse (_Çvet_. 4.
5) which would indicate a formal duality like that of the
S[=a]nkhyas;[29] but in general one may say that the Upanishads are
simply pantheistic, only the absorption into a world-soul is as yet
scarcely formulated. On the other hand, some of the older Upanishads
show traces of an atheistic and materialistic (_asad_) philosophy,
which is swallowed up in the growing inclination to personify the
creative principle, and ultimately is lost in the erection of a
personal Lord, as in the latest Upanishads. This tendency to
personify, with the increase of special sectarian gods, will lead
again, after centuries, to the rehabilitation of a triad of gods, the
_trim[=u]rti_, where unite Vishnu, Çiva, and, with these, who are more
powerful, Brahm[=a], the Praj[=a]pati of the Veda, as the All-god of
purely pantheistic systems. In the purer, older form recorded above,
the _purusha_ (Person) is sprung from the _[=a]tm[=a]_. There is no
distinction between matter and spirit. Conscious being (_sat_) wills,
and so produces all. Or _[=a]tm[=a]_ comes first; and this is
conscious _sat_ and the cause of the worlds; which _[=a]tm[=a]_
eventually becomes the Lord. The _[=a]tm[=a]_ in man, owing to his
environment, cannot see whole, and needs the Yoga discipline of
asceticism to enable him to do so. But he is the same ego which is the
All.
The relation between the absolute and the ego is through will. "This
(neuter) _brahma_ willed, 'May I be many,' and created" _(Ch[=a]nd_.,
above). Sometimes the impersonal, and sometimes the personal "spirit
willed" _(T[=a]iit._ 2. 6). And when it is said, in _Brihad [=A]ran_.
1. 4. 1, that "In the beginning ego, spirit, _[=a]tm[=a],_ alone
existed," one finds this spirit (self) to be a form of _brahma (ib._
10-11). Personified in a sectarian sense, this spirit becomes the
divinity Rudra Çiva, the Blessed One (_Çvet[=a]çvatara,_ 3. 5.
11).[30]
In short, the teachers of the Upanishads not only do not declare
clearly what they believed in regard to cosmogonic and eschatological
matters, but many of them probably did not know clearly what they
believed. Their great discovery was that man's spirit was not
particular and mortal, but part of the immortal universal. Whether
this universal was a being alive and a personal _[=a]tm[=a]_, or
whether this personal being was but a transient form of impersonal,
imperishable being;[31] and whether the union with being, _brahma_,
would result in a survival of individual consciousness,--these are
evidently points they were not agreed upon, and, in all probability,
no one of the sages was certain in regard to them. Crass
identifications of the vital principle with breath, as one with ether,
which is twice emphasized as one of the two immortal things, were
provisionally accepted. Then breath and immortal spirit were made one.
Matter had energy from the beginning, _brahma_; or was chaos, _asat_,
without being. But when _asat_ becomes _sat_, that _sat_ becomes
_brahma_, energized being, and to _asat_ there is no return. In
eschatology the real (spirit, or self) part of man (ego) either
rejoices forever as a conscious part of the conscious world-self, or
exists immortal in _brahma_--imperishable being, conceived as more or
less conscious.[32]
The teachers recognize the limitations of understanding: "The gods are
in Indra, Indra is in the Father-god, the Father-god (the Spirit) is
in _brahma_"--"But in what is _brahma?_" And the answer is, "Ask not
too much" (_Brihad. [=A]ran. Up_. 3. 6).
These problems will be those of the future formal philosophy. Even the
Upanishads do not furnish a philosophy altogether new. Their doctrine
of _karma_ their identification of particular ego and universal ego,
is not original. The 'breaths,' the 'nine doors,' the 'three
qualities,' the _purusha_ as identical with ego, are older even than
the Br[=a]hmanas (Scherman, _loc. cit_. p. 62).
It is not a new philosophy, it is a new religion that the Upanishads
offer.[33] This is no religion of rites and ceremonies, although the
cult is retained as helpful in disciplining and teaching; it is a
religion for sorrowing humanity. It is a religion that comforts the
afflicted, and gives to the soul 'that peace which the world cannot
give.' In the sectarian Upanishads this bliss of religion is ever
present. "Through knowing Him who is more subtile than subtile, who is
creator of everything, who has many forms, who embraces everything,
the Blessed Lord--one attains to peace without end" (_Çvet_. 4.
14-15). These teachers, who enjoin the highest morality
('self-restraint, generosity, and mercy' are God's commandments in
_Brihad [=A]ran_. 5. 2) refuse to be satisfied with virtue's reward,
and, being able to obtain heaven, 'seek for something beyond.' And
this they do not from mere pessimism, but from a conviction that they
will find a joy greater than that of heaven, and more enduring, in
that world where is "the light beyond the darkness" (_Çvet_. 3. 8);
"where shines neither sun, moon, stars, lightning, nor fire, but all
shines after Him that shines alone, and through His light the universe
is lighted" (_Mund_. 2. 2. 10). This, moreover, is not a future joy.
It is one that frees from perturbation in this life, and gives relief
from sorrow. In the Ch[=a]ndogya (7. 1. 3) a man in grief comes
seeking this new knowledge of the universal Spirit; "For," says he, "I
have heard it said that he who knows the Spirit passes beyond grief."
So in the [=I]ç[=a], though this is a late sectarian work, it is
asked, "What sorrow can there be for him to whom Spirit alone has
become all things?' (7). Again, "He that knows the joy of _brahma_,
whence speech with mind turns away without apprehending it, fears not"
(_T[=a]itt_. 2. 4); for "fear comes only from a second" (_Brihad
[=A]ran. Up_. 1. 4. 2), and when one recognizes that all is one he no
longer fears death (_ib_. 4. 4. 15).
Such is the religion of these teachers. In the quiet assumption that
life is not worth living, they are as pessimistic as was Buddha. But
if, as seems to be the case, the Buddhist believed in the eventual
extinction of his individuality, their pessimism is of a different
sort. For the teacher of the Upanishads believes that he will attain
to unending joy; not the rude happiness of 'heaven-seekers,' but the
unchanging bliss of immortal peace. For him that wished it, there was
heaven and the gods. These were not denied; they were as real as the
"fool" that desired them. But for him that conquered passion, and knew
the truth, there was existence without the pain of desire, life
without end, freedom from rebirth. The spirit of the sage becomes one
with the Eternal; man becomes God.
* * * * *
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 1: Compare _Çal. Br._ ii. 4. 2. 1-6, where the
Father-god gives laws of conduct; and Kaush[=i]taki Brahmana
Upanishad, 3. 8: "This spirit (breath) is guardian of the
world, the lord of the world; he is my spirit" (or, myself),
_sa ma [=a]tm[=a]_. The Brahmanic priest teaches that he is a
god like other gods, and goes so far as to say that he may
be united with a god after death. The Upanishad philosopher
says 'I am God.']
[Footnote 2: Compare Scherman, _Philosophische Hymnen_, p.
93; above, p. 156.]
[Footnote 3: Or, in other words, the thought of the
Brahmanic period (not necessarily of extant Br[=a]hmanas) is
synchronous with part of the Vedic collection.]
[Footnote 4: The last additions to this class of literature
would, of course, conform in language to their models, just
as the late Vedic Mantras conform as well as their composers
can make them to the older song or _chandas_ style.]
[Footnote 5: Cited by Müller in SBE. i. _Introd_. p.
lxxxii.]
[Footnote 6: Compare Weber, _Ind. Lit_. p. 171; Müller,
_loc. cit._ p. lxviii.]
[Footnote 7: The relation between the Br[=a]hmanas (ritual
works discussed in the last chapter) and the early
Upanishads will be seen better with the help of a concrete
example. As has been explained before, Rig Veda means to the
Hindu not only the 'Collection' of hymns, but all the
library connected with this collection; for instance, the
two Br[=a]hmanas (of the Rig Veda), namely, the Aitareya and
the K[=a]ush[=i]taki (or Ç[=a]nkh[=a]yana). Now, each of
these Br[=a]hmanas concludes with an [=A]ranyaka, that is, a
Forest-Book (_ara[n.]ya_, forest, solitude); and in each
Forest Book is an Upanishad. For example, the third book of
the K[=a]ush[=i]taki [=A]ranyaka is the K[=a]ush[=i]taki
Upanishad. So the Ch[=a]ndogya and Brihad [=A]ranyaka belong
respectively to the S[=a]man and Yajus.]
[Footnote 8: This teaching is ascribed to Ç[=a]ndilya, to
whose heresy, as opposed to the pure Vedantic doctrinc of
Çankara, we shall have to revert in a later chapter. The
heresy consists, in a word, in regarding the individual
spirit as at any time distinct from the Supreme Spirit,
though Ç[=a]ndilya teaches that it is ultimately absorbed
into the latter.]
[Footnote 9: "God' Who' is air, air (space) is God 'Who',"
as if one said 'either is aether.']
[Footnote 10: 'Did penance over,' as one doing penance
remains in meditation. 'Brooded' is Müller's apt word for
this _abhi-tap._]
[Footnote 11: Compare _Brihad [=A]ran. Up_. 6. 3. 7.]
[Footnote 12: This is the _karma_ or _sams[=a]ra_ doctrine.]
[Footnote 13: In J.U.B. alone have we noticed the formula
asserting that 'both being and not-being existed in the
beginning' (1. 53. 1; JAOS. XVI. 130).]
[Footnote 14: Opposed is 3. 19. 1 and _T[=a]itt. Up_. 2. 7.
1 (_Br_. II. 2. 9. 1, 10): "Not-being was here in the
beginning. From it arose being." And so _Çat. Br_. VI. 1. 1.
1 (though in word only, for here not-being is the seven
spirits of God!)]
[Footnote 15: As the Vedic notion of not-being existing
before being is refuted, so the Atharvan homage to Time as
Lord is also derided (_Çvet._ 6) in the Upanishads. The
supreme being is above time, as he is without parts (_ib_.).
In this later Upanishad wisdom, penance, and the grace of
God are requisite to know _brahma_.]
[Footnote 16: This Vedic [Greek: Adgos] doctrine is
conspicuous in the Br[=a]hmana. Compare _Çat. Br_. VII. 5.
2. 21: "V[=a]c ([Greek: Adgos]) is the Unborn one; from
V[=a]c the all-maker made creatures." See Weber, _Ind.
Stud_. IX. 477 ff.]
[Footnote 17: Compare J.U.B. i. 56. 1, 'Water (alone)
existed in the beginning.' This is the oldest and latest
Hindu explanation of the matter of the physical universe.
From the time of the Vedas to mediaeval times, as is
recorded by the Greek travellers, water is regarded as the
original element.]
[Footnote 18: The Gandh[=a]ra might indicate a late
geographical expansion as well as an early heritage, so that
this is not conclusive.]
[Footnote 19: Gough, _Philosophy of the Upanishads_, has
sought to show that the pure Vedantism of Çankara is the
only belief taught in the Upanishads, ignoring the weight of
those passages that oppose his (in our view) too sweeping
assertion.]
[Footnote 20: See the Parimara described, _[=A]it. Br_.
VIII. 28. Here _brahma_ is wind, around which die five
divinities--lightning in rain, rain in moon, moon in sun,
sun in fire, fire in wind--and they are reborn in reverse
order. The 'dying' is used as a curse. The king shall say,
'When fire dies in wind then may my foe die,' and he will
die; so when any of the other gods dies around _brahma_.]
[Footnote 21: Compare sterben, starve.]
[Footnote 22: The androgynous creator of the Br[=a]hmanas.]
[Footnote 23: We cannot, however, quite agree with Whitney
who, _loc. cit._ p. 92, and Journal, xiii, p. ciii ff.,
implies that belief in hell comes later than this period.
This is not so late a teaching. Hell is Vedic and
Brahmanic.]
[Footnote 24: This, in pantheistic style, is expressed thus
(Çvet. 4): "When the light has arisen there is no day no
night, neither being nor not-being; the Blessed One alone
exists there. There is no likeness of him whose name is
Great Glory."]
[Footnote 25: Brihad [=A]ranyaka Upanishad, 2.4; 4. 5.]
[Footnote 26: _Na pretya sa[.m]jñ[=a] 'sti._]
[Footnote 27: Some of the Upanishads have been tampered
with, so that all of the contradictions may not be due to
the composers. Nevertheless, as the uncertainty of opinion
in regard to cosmogony is quite as great as that in respect
of absorption, all the vagueness cannot properly be
attributed to the efforts of later systematizers to bring
the Upanishads into their more or less orthodox Vedantism.]
[Footnote 28: In 4. 10. 5 _kam_ is pleasure, one with ether
as _brahma_, not as wrongly above, p. 222, the god Ka.]
[Footnote 29: This Upanishad appears to be sectarian,
perhaps an early Çivaite tract (dualistic), if the allusion
to Rudra Çiva, below, be accepted as original.]
[Footnote 30: As is foreshadowed in the doctrine of grace by
V[=a]c in the Rig Veda, in the _Çvet_, the _Katha_, and the
_Mund_. Upanishads (_K. 2. 23; M_. 3. 2. 3), but nowhere
else, there enters, with the sectarian phase, that radical
subversion of the Upanishad doctrine which becomes so
powerful at a later date, the teaching that salvation is a
gift of God. "This Spirit is not got by wisdom; the Spirit
chooses as his own the body of that man whom He chooses."]
[Footnote 31: See above. As descriptive of the immortal
conscious Spirit, there is the famous verse: "If the slayer
thinks to slay, if the slain thinks he is slain; they both
understand not; this one (the Spirit) slays not, and is not
slain" (_Katha_, 2. 19); loosely rendered by Emerson, 'If
the red slayer think he slays,' etc.]
[Footnote 32: The fact remarked by Thibaut that radically
different systems of philosophy are built upon the
Upanishads is enough to show how ambiguous are the
declarations of the latter.]
[Footnote 33: Compare Barth, _Religions_, p. 76.]
* * * * *