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 s.p.a.ce 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 G.o.ds (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?"
_vijn[=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 G.o.ds 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 G.o.ds" (2. 2. 4. 6). Moreover after the highest wisdom has been revealed, and the second cla.s.s 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 h.e.l.l 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-cla.s.s 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. h.e.l.l 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 pa.s.sages 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-G.o.d, 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 pa.s.sage (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]JnAVALKYA AND M[=A]ITREY[=I].[25]
Y[=a]jnavalkya 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]jnavalkya 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]jnavalkya. "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]jnavalkya 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 G.o.ds are G.o.ds dear, but for the ego"s sake are G.o.ds 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 ma.s.s 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]jnavalkya. 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]jnavalkya 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]jnavalkya 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-G.o.d 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 circ.u.mnavigation, 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 (_cvet_. 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 G.o.ds, will lead again, after centuries, to the rehabilitation of a triad of G.o.ds, the _trim[=u]rti_, where unite Vishnu, civa, and, with these, who are more powerful, Brahm[=a], the Praj[=a]pati of the Veda, as the All-G.o.d 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 civa, the Blessed One (_cvet[=a]cvatara,_ 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. Cra.s.s 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 G.o.ds are in Indra, Indra is in the Father-G.o.d, the Father-G.o.d (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" (_cvet_. 4.
14-15). These teachers, who enjoin the highest morality ("self-restraint, generosity, and mercy" are G.o.d"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" (_cvet_. 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 pa.s.ses beyond grief."
So in the [=I]c[=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 a.s.sumption 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 G.o.ds. These were not denied; they were as real as the "fool" that desired them. But for him that conquered pa.s.sion, 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 G.o.d.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 1: Compare _cal. Br._ ii. 4. 2. 1-6, where the Father-G.o.d 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 G.o.d like other G.o.ds, and goes so far as to say that he may be united with a G.o.d after death. The Upanishad philosopher says "I am G.o.d."]
[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 cla.s.s 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 Muller in SBE. i. _Introd_. p.
lx.x.xii.]
[Footnote 6: Compare Weber, _Ind. Lit_. p. 171; Muller, _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 c[=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 c[=a]ndilya, to whose heresy, as opposed to the pure Vedantic doctrinc of cankara, 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 c[=a]ndilya teaches that it is ultimately absorbed into the latter.]
[Footnote 9: "G.o.d" Who" is air, air (s.p.a.ce) is G.o.d "Who","
as if one said "either is aether."]
[Footnote 10: "Did penance over," as one doing penance remains in meditation. "Brooded" is Muller"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 a.s.serting 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 _cat. Br_. VI. 1. 1.
1 (though in word only, for here not-being is the seven spirits of G.o.d!)]
[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 (_cvet._ 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 G.o.d are requisite to know _brahma_.]
[Footnote 16: This Vedic [Greek: Adgos] doctrine is conspicuous in the Br[=a]hmana. Compare _cat. Br_. VII. 5.