Aitareya Upanishad | by Shankara | I iii 1-14
CHAPTER III
sa īkṣateme nu lokāśca lokapālāścānnamebhyaḥ sṛjā iti .. 1..
He (the Creator) bethought Himself:
“Here now are the worlds and the world-guardians.
Let Me create food for them.”
Saḥ, He. God; īkṣata, thought, thus: How?
“Ime nu, these then are; lokāḥ ca lokapālāḥ ca, the senses and their deities—that have been created by Me and dowered with hunger and thirst; therefore these cannot subsist without food.
Accordingly, sṛjā (which is the same as sṛje), let Me create; annam food; ebhyaḥ, for these— the deities of the senses.”
Thus is seen in the world the independence of lordly persons with regard to extending favour or disfavour to their own people.
Therefore the supreme Lord, too, has independence in the matter of favouring or disfavouring all, since He is the Lord of all.
so'po'bhyatapattābhyo'bhitaptābhyo mūrtirajāyata .
yā vai sā mūrtirajāyatānnaṁ vai tat .. 2..
He brooded over the waters.
From the waters, thus brooded over,
there emerged a [condensed] form.
The form that so emerged is indeed food.
Saḥ, He, God; being desirous of creating food; abhyatapat, deliberated with regard to; āpaḥ, water, already mentioned.
Tābhyaḥ abhitaptābhyaḥ, from the water that was brooded over, and that formed the material; ajāyata, evolved; mūrtiḥ, a solid form—that could provide support for others and that comprised the moving and the unmoving.
Yā vai sa mūrtiḥ ajāyata, the moulded form that evolved; tat annam vai, that (formed thing) is verily food.
tadenatsṛṣṭaṁ parāṅtyajighāṁsattadvācā'jighṛkṣat tannāśaknodvācā grahītum .
sa yaddhainadvācā'grahaiṣyadabhivyāhṛtya haivānnamatrapsyat .. 3..
The food so created wished to flee away.
He sought to grasp it with speech.
But He was not able to grasp it with speech.
If, indeed, He had grasped it with speech,
one would then have been satisfied by merely uttering [the word] food.
Tat enat annam, this aforesaid food; that was sṛṣṭam, created — in the presence of the senses and their deities.
As a mouse, for instance, when in the presence of a cat, thinks, “This is an eater of food and is Death to me”, and moves back,
similarly this food became parāk, turned back; and atyajighāṁsat, wanted to go beyond the reach of the devourers;—began to run away.
When that sum total of the organs and their deities, that formed the lump called the body and senses (of Virāṭ), realised that intention of the food, but did not notice other caters of food,
He Himself being the first begotten. He ajighṛkṣat, tried to take up; tat, that food; vācā, through speech, through the act of speaking.
Na aśaknot, He did not succeed, grahītum tat, to take up that, vācā, through speech through speaking.
Yat, if; saḥ, He, the First Born, the first embodied Being; agrahaiṣyat, had taken up; this food; vācā, through speech; then everyone, being a product of the First Born; atrapsyat, would have become satisfied; abhi-vyāhritya eva annam, merely by talking of food.
But, as a matter of fact, this is not the case.
Hence we understand that the First Born, too, did not succeed in grasping food through speech.
The remaining portions are to be similarly explained.
tatprāṇenājighṛkṣat tannāśaknotprāṇena grahītuṁ sa yaddhainatprāṇenāgrahaiṣyadabhiprāṇya
haivānnamatrapsyat .. 4..
[The Creator] sought to grasp it with the breath.
But He was not able to gasp it with the breath.
If, indeed, He had grasped it with the breath,
one would then have been satisfied by merely smelling food.
taccakṣuṣā'jighṛkṣat tannāśaknoccakṣuṣā grahītu/n sa yaddhainaccakṣuṣā'grahaiṣyaddṛṣṭvā haivānamatrapsyat .. 5..
He sought to grasp it with the eye.
But He was not able to grasp it with the eye.
If, indeed, He had grasped it with the eye,
one would then have been satisfied by merely seeing food.
tacchrotreṇājighṛkṣat tannāśaknocchrotreṇa grahītuṁ sa yaddhainacchroteṇāgrahaiṣyacchrutvā haivānnamatrapsyat .. 6..
He sought to grasp it with the ear.
But He was not able to grasp it with the ear.
If, indeed, He had grasped it with the ear,
one would then have been satisfied by merely hearing of food.
tattvacā'jighṛkṣat tannāśaknottvacā grahītuṁ sa yaddhainattvacā'grahaiṣyat spṛṣṭvā haivānnamatrapsyat .. 7..
He sought to grasp it with the skin.
But He was not able to grasp it with the skin.
If, indeed, He had grasped it with the skin,
one would then have been satisfied by merely touching food.
tanmanasā'jighṛkṣat tannāśaknonmanasā grahītuṁ sa yaddhainanmanasā'grahaiṣyaddhyātvā haivānnamatrapsyat .. 8..
He sought to grasp it with the mind.
But He was not able to grasp it with the mind.
If, indeed, He had grasped it with the mind,
one would then have been satisfied by merely thinking of food.
tacchiśnenājighṛkṣat tannāśaknocchiśnena grahītuṁ sa yaddhainacchiśnenāgrahaiṣyadvitsṛjya haivānamatrapsyat .. 9..
He sought to grasp it with the virile member.
But He was not able to grasp it with the virile member.
If, indeed, He had grasped it with the virile member,
one would then have been satisfied by merely emitting food.
tadapānenājighṛkṣat tadāvayat saiṣo'nnasya graho yadvāyuranāyuvār eṣa yadvāyuḥ ..
He sought to grasp it with the apāna and He grasped it.
This grasper of food is what vāyu (air, or prāṇa) is.
This vāyu is what lives on food.
Being unable to take up the food through nose, eye, ear, skin, mind and the generative apparatus, that is to say, through the activity of the respective organs, at last He ajighṛkṣat, wanted to take up the food;
apānena, by Apāna (the in-drawing energy of) air — through the cavity of the mouth, Tat āvayat, (He) took up that— that food thus; He ate it. Therefore saḥ eṣaḥ, this Apāna air; annasya grahaḥ, (is) the devourer of food.
Yat Vāyuḥ (should be rather yaḥ Vāyuḥ), the vital energy that; is annāyuḥ vai, well known as dependent on food, for its subsistence; is this one; yat Vāyuḥ, that is the vital energy, called Apāna.
sa īkṣata kathaṁ nvidaṁ madṛte syāditi sa īkṣata katareṇa prapadyā iti .
sa īkṣata yadi vācā'bhivyāhṛtaṁ yadi prāṇenābhiprāṇitaṁ yadi cakṣuṣā dṛṣṭaṁ yadi śrotreṇa śrutaṁ
yadi tvacā spṛṣṭaṁ yadi manasā dhyātaṁ yadyapānenābhyapānitaṁ yadi śiśnena visṛṣṭamatha
ko'hamiti .. 11..
He (the Creator) bethought Himself:
“How could this [aggregate of body and organs] exist without Me?”
Then He said to Himself: “Which way shall I enter it?”
He said to Himself further:
“If speech is uttered by the organ of speech,
if smelling is done by the breath (prāṇa),
seeing by the eyes, hearing by the ears,
touching by the skin, thinking by the mind, eating by the apāna,
and the emission [of semen] by the virile member,
then who am I?”
Having thus made the existence of the congress of senses and their deities dependent on food, like the existence of a city, its citizens, and its rulers, saḥ, He; īkṣata, thought — like the ruler of the city, while cogitating thus:
"Kathaṁ nu, how indeed; mat-ṛte, without Me, the master of the city; syāt, can there be; idam, this thing—this activity belonging to the body and senses that will be spoken of; since it is meant for somebody else?
Yadi vācā abhi-vyāhṛtam, if speaking is encompassed by the organ of speech.
The mere use of speech etc. will become useless, will not take place in any way, just as offerings and praise that are made and sung by citizens and bards in honour of their lord become useless when their lord is not there.
Therefore just as the king is with regard to the city, so I should be there as the supreme lord, the ruler, the witness of virtue and vice, and the enjoyer.
It is a logical necessity that the combination of the effects (i.e. body and the organs) should be meant for somebody else.
If this necessity can be fulfilled even without Myself who am a conscious being and by whom enjoyment through them is sought for,
just as much as the activities of a city and its citizens can be sought to be explained without their lord, atha, then; kaḥ aham, who or what, and whose lord am I?
If, after entering into the combination of body and senses, I do not witness the fruits of utterances etc. made by speech etc., just as a king, after entering a city, observes the omissions and commissions of the officers,
then nobody will understand or think of Me as, "This one is a reality and is of this kind.”
Contrariwise, I shall become cognisable as the conscious reality who knows as His objects such activities as utterance etc. of the organs of speech etc.,
and for whose sake exist these utterances etc. of such composite things as speech and so on,
just as the pillars, walls, etc., that enter into the construction of a palace etc., exist for the sake of somebody else who is sentient and does not form a part of that structure.
Having reasoned thus, saḥ, He; īkṣata, thought, iti, thus: “Katareṇa prapadyai through which shall I enter?
There are 2 ways of entrance into this composite thing—
the fore part of the foot and the crown of the head.
Katareṇa, by which of these 2, paths; prapadyai (or rather, prapadyeya), should J enter; into this city of the aggregate of body and senses?”
Having considered thus and having deliberated:
“That being so, I should not enter through the lower way—viz. the 2 tips of the feet—that is the path of entry for My servant Prāṇa (the Vital Force), that is commissioned to act in every way on My behalf.
What then (should I do)?
As a last resort, let me enter by splitting up the crown of its head”
—having thought so, just like a human being who performs what he thinks.
sa etameva sīmānaṁ vidaryaitayā dvārā prāpadyata . saiṣā vidṛtirnāma dvāstadetannā'ndanam .
tasya traya āvasathāstrayaḥ svapnā ayamāvasatho'yamāvasatho'yamāvasatha iti .. 12..
So, piercing the end
(i.e. the place where the parting of the hair ends),
the Lord entered through that door.
That door is known as the vidṛti, the cleft.
This is the place of bliss.
Ātman [thus embodied] has three abodes, three conditions of sleep.
This is one abode, this is another, this is the third.
Saḥ, He, the Creator God; etam eva sīmānam vidārya, having cleft this very end, having made a hole into, the farthest point where the parting of the hair occurs;
etayā, dvārā, through this gate, this entrance; prāpadyata, entered; into this world, i.e. into this conglomeration of body and senses.
This one is that entrance that becomes well known from the fact of the perception inside (the mouth) of the taste etc. of oil and other things when these are applied on the crown of the head for a long time.
Sā eṣā dvāḥ, this door; vidṛtiḥ nāma, is well known as vidṛti (the cleft one), because of its having been cleft.
As for the other entrances—viz. the ear etc.—they are neither perfect nor the sources of joy, since they are common passages meant for those occupying the places of servants etc.
But this passage is only for the supreme Lord; tat, hence; etat nāndanam, this one is productive of joy.
Nāndana is the same as nandana, the lengthening being a Vedic licence, it is so called because one revels (nandati) by reaching the supreme Brahman through this door.
Tasya, of Him, who, after having created thus, entered (the body) as an individual soul, like a king entering a city;
there are trayaḥ āvasathāḥ, 3 abodes—viz.
- the right eye—the eye-ball, the seat of the sense (of vision)—during the waking state;
- the mind inside, during the dream state; and
- the space within the heart, during the state of deep sleep.
Or the 3 abodes may be the ones that will be enumerated, viz. the body of the father, the womb of the mother, and one's own body.
(He has) trayaḥ svapnāḥ, 3 dreams, that are known as waking, dream, and deep sleep.
Objection: The waking state is not a dream, it being a state of consciousness.
Answer: Not so, it is verily a dream.
Objection: How?
Answer: Since there is no consciousness of one's own supreme Self, and since in it are perceived unreal things as in a dream.
Ayam, this one—the right eye; is the first āvasathāḥ, abode, the second is the mind inside; and the space within the heart is the third.
"Ayam āvasathāḥ, this is an abode” is only a recounting of what is already enumerated.
Residing alternately as identified with those abodes, this individual soul sleeps deeply for long through natural ignorance,
and does not wake up, though experiencing the blows of sorrow that arise from the concurrence of many hundreds of thousands of calamities and fall like the thumps of a heavy club.
sa jāto bhūtānyabhivyaikhyat kimihānyaṁ vāvadiṣaditi .sa etameva puruṣaṁ brahma tatamamapaśyat .
idamadarśanamitī .. 13..
Having been born as the jīva,
He realized the elements (bhūtas) as one with Himself
[and expressed this in words].
What else here would one desire to speak about?
He perceived this very person as the all-pervading Brahman.
He said: “Ah, I have seen It.”
Saḥ jātaḥ, He being born, having entered into the body as the individual soul; abhivyaikhyat, manifested; bhūtāni, the beings.
When, by good luck, a teacher of supreme compassion beat near his ears the drum of the great sayings of the Upaniṣads, whose notes were calculated to wake up the knowledge of the Self,
then the individual apaśyat, realised; etam eva, this very; puruṣaṁ, Puruṣa (as Brahman)—
- the Puruṣa that is being discussed as the Lord of creation etc., who is called Puruṣa because of residence (śayana, i.e. existence) in the city (puri) (of the heart).
- (He realised Him) as brahma, Brahman, the Great; that is tatamam (by adding the missing ta, and taking the form tatatamam, the word means) the most pervasive, the fullest, like space.
How (did he realise)?
"l adarśam, have seen; idam, this one—this Brahman, that is the real nature of my Self.”
The elongation (of i in itī) is in accordance with the rule that in the case of a word suggesting deliberation, the vowel gets lengthened.
tasmādidandro nāmedandro ha vai nāma . tamidandraṁ santamiṁdra ityācakṣate parokṣeṇa .
parokṣapriyā iva hi devāḥ parokṣapriyā iva hi devāḥ .. 14..
Therefore He (the Supreme Self) is called Idandra.
Idandra, indeed, is His name.
Him who is Idandra they call indirectly Indra.
For the gods appear to be fond of cryptic epithets;
yea, the gods appear to be fond of cryptic epithets.
Since He realised Brahman as “this” (i.e. directly) --"the Brahman that is immediate and direct, the Self that is within all” (Bṛih. III. iv. 1)
- therefore from the fact of seeing as “¡dam, this”, the supreme Self is idandraḥ nāma, called Idandra. God is idandraḥ ha vai nāma, verily known as Idandra, in the world.
Tam idandram santam, Him who is Idandra; they, the knowers of Brahman; ācakṣate, call; parokṣeṇa, indirectly by a word denoting a remote thing; Indraḥ iti, as Indra.
(They call Him thus) for the sake of conventional dealings, they being afraid of referring by a direct name, since He is the most adorable.
So it follows that, hi, inasmuch as; devaḥ, the gods; are parokṣapriyā iva, verily fond of indirect names; it needs no mention that the great Lord, the God of all the gods, must be much more so.
The repetition (in parokṣapriyā etc.) is to indicate the end of the Part (I) that is being dealt with.