THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE UPANISHADS

Book: Paul Deussen

Translation: Rev. A. S. Geden
Review: Satyendra Nath Dwivedi

Introduction to the Philosophy of the Upanishads

All the thoughts of the Upanishads move around two fundamental ideas –
the ‘Brahman’ and the ‘Atman’. As a rule these terms are employed
synonymously. Where a difference reveals itself, ‘Brahman’ appears as the
older and less intelligible expression, ‘Atman’ as the later and more
significant; ‘Brahman’ as the unknown that needs to be explained, ‘Atman’
as the known through which the other unknown finds its explanation;
‘Brahman’ as the first principle so far as it is comprehended in the
universe, ‘Atman’ so far as it is known in the inner self of man.

The difference between Brahman and Atman emerges most clearly where they
appear side by side with one another in brief sayings:

“This Atman is the Brahman.” [Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5]

The ‘Brahman’, the power which presents itself to us materialized in all existing
things, which creates, sustains, preserves and receives back into Itself again all
worlds, this eternal infinite divine power is identical with the ‘Atman’, with that
which, after stripping off everything external, we discover in ourselves as our real
most essential being, our individual Self, the soul.

This identity of the Brahman and the Atman, of God and the Soul, is the
fundamental thought of the entire doctrine of the Upanishads. It is briefly
expressed by the great sayings (‘Mahavakyas’):

“That thou art.” [Chhandogya Upanishad 6.8.7]

”I am Brahman”. [Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10]

All worldly objects and relationships are, as ‘Yajnavalkya’ explains in

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad [2.4.5], of no value for their own sake (as things in
themselves), but for the sake of the ‘Atman’; nay, they exist solely in the Atman,
and that man is utterly and hopelessly undone who knows them ‘apart from the
Self’ (‘anyatra atmano’). This Atman, he concludes, is brahmana and warrior, is
space, gods, and creatures, ‘this Atman is the entire universe’ (
)”. [Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.4.6]

The Upanishads teach that this entire universe, with its relations in space, its
consequent manifoldness and dependence upon the mind that apprehends, rests
solely upon an illusion (‘Maya’), natural indeed to us owing to the limitations of
our intellect; and that there is in truth one Being alone, exalted above space and
time, multiplicity and change, self-revealing in all the forms of nature, and by me
who myself also one and undivided, discovered and realized within myself as my
very Self, the ‘Atman’.

“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” is the requirement of the Bible.
But on what grounds is this demand to be based, since feeling is in myself
alone and not in another? “Because”, the Veda here adds in explanation,
“thy neighbour is in truth thy very Self, and what separates you from him is
mere delusion”.

The System of the Upanishads

It is a tribute to the high metaphysical capacity of the Indian people, that the
phenomenon of asceticism made its appearance among them earlier and
occupied a larger place than among any other known people.

In a hymn the Rig-Veda [X.190.1] says: “Truth and right, and with them the
entire universe, are born of ‘tapas’.”

The general view that lies at the basis of the Upanishads is that ‘Brahman’, i.e.
the ‘Atman’, is an object of knowledge:

“The Atman, in truth, should be seen, heard, comprehended, reflected upon”.

[Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.4.5]

And the aim of the Upanishadic text is to communicate this knowledge of

Brahman.
Very soon, however, it came to be realized that this knowledge of Brahman was
essentially of a different nature from that which we call ‘knowledge’ in ordinary
life.

The experimental knowledge which reveals to us a world of plurality, where in

reality only Brahman exists, and a body where in reality there is only the Soul,
must be a mistaken knowledge, a delusion, a ‘Maya’.

According as the Atman is conceived as a divine person, this revelation is

represented as an act of his grace:

“Not through
instruction is
the Atman
won,
Not through genius or much book hearing;
Only by the man who He chooses is He comprehended;
To him the Atman reveals His essence.”
[Katha Upanishad 1.2.23]

“For it is He who creates bliss. For when a man finds resting-place and peace in
that invisible, unfathomable One, then has he attained to peace. When, however,
a man assumes therein an interval, a separation (between himself as subject
and the Atman as object), then his unrest is prolonged. Moreover, it is the unrest
of one who deems himself wise (while making Brahman an object of
knowledge).” [Taittiriya Upanishad 2.7]

“He Who, dealing in the ‘Akshara’ as distinct from ‘Akasha’, Whom Akasha
knows not, Whose body the Akasha is, Who rules the Akasha from within, He is
thy Soul, the inner guide, the immortal.” [Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3.7.12]

Among the symbols by which the supra-sensible Brahman is represented

to sentient perception is finally to be reckoned the sacred syllable

(‘Om’), which of all the symbols came to be the most important and fruitful.
It was closely connected with the Yoga practice, one of the most peculiar
phenomena of Indian religious life.

The conception of the Atman implies that the first principle of things must above
all be sought in man’s inner self. The inner nature of man however is not
accessible in the same way as his exterior.
“Thou canst not see the seer of seeing, thou canst not hear the hearer of
hearing, thou canst not comprehend the comprehender of comprehension, thou
canst not know the knower of knowledge; he is thy soul, that is within all.
Whatever is distinct from that is liable to suffering.” [Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
3.4.2]

In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, Yajnavalkya concludes his description of the

almighty being who sustains and pervades space and with it the entire universe.

“In truth, O Gargi, this imperishable one sees but is not seen, hears but is not
heard, comprehends but is not comprehended, knows but is not known. Beside
Him there is none that sees, beside Him there is none that hears, beside Him
there is none that comprehends, beside Him there is none that knows. In truth, O
Gargi, in this imperishable One is space in-woven and interwoven.”
[Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3.8.11]

It is essential to the deeper religious consciousness to regard the earthly

life not as an end in itself, but merely as a road by which we must travel to
our new destination.

“At whose feet rolling on

In years and days time passes by,
Whom as the Light of lights the gods
Adore, as immortality.
On whom the fivefold host of living beings,
Together with space depend,
Him know I as my soul,
Immortal, the Immortal.” [Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.16-17]

In the essential nature Brahman is and remains completely unknowable. Neither

as the (metaphysical) being (Sat), nor as Knowing subject within us (Chit), nor as
the bliss (Ananada) that holds sway in deep sleep when the opposition of subject
and object is destroyed, is Brahman accessible to knowledge. No
characterization of Him therefore is possible otherwise than by the denial to Him
of all empirical attributes, definitions and relations – ‘Neti’, ‘Neti’, “it is not so, it is
not so”. Especially is he independent of all limitations of space, time and cause,
which rule all that is objectively presented and therefore the entire empirical
universe.

The essential identity of the universe with Brahman is represented as a creation

of the universe by Brahman with a view to suit man’s individual capacity, which is
adjusted to relations of cause. According to the meaning of the Indian word for
creation, ‘Srishti’, this is to be thought of as a discharge, a setting free or
emission, an emergence therefore of the universe from Brahman; although this is
in contradiction with the fundamental of the sole reality of Brahman.

All living creatures – plants, animals, men and gods, are abodes into which
Brahman has entered as individual soul.

All animal and human forms are essentially similar, and are alike
incarnations of the Atman.

It is a consequence of this omnipresence of the Atman that all creatures share in

the bliss which is his essence. Longing for the Atman is therefore innate in all
beings, and equally for him who knows himself as the Atman.

“His (Brahman’s) name is ‘longing for Him’ (‘tadvadanam’), as ‘longing for Him’
ought to be worshipped. He who knows himself as such, for him assuredly all
beings long.” [Kena Upanishad 4.6]

“Man is altogether fashioned out of desire (‘Kama’), according to his desire is his
discernment (‘Kratu’), according to his discernment he does his work.”
[Chhandogya Upanishad 3.14.1]

Each of us is eternally free Atman. We do not first become the Atman, but
we are it already, though unconscious of the fact. Accordingly, we are
already free in reality, in spite of the absolute necessity of our acts, but we
do not know it.
“Just as he who does not know the hiding place of a treasure of gold does not
find it, although he may pass over it again and again, so none of the creatures
find the world of Brahman although they daily enter into it (in deep sleep); for
they are constrained by unreality.” [Chhandogya Upanishad 8.3.2]

He who knows himself as the ‘Atman’ says:

“In me the universe had its origin,

In me alone the whole subsists,
In me it is lost, - this Brahman,
The timeless, it is I myself.” [Kaivalya Upanishad 19]

The Upanishads teach that this universe is not the ‘Atman’, the proper ‘Self’ of
the things, but a mere ‘Maya’, a deception, an illusion, and that the empirical
knowledge of it yields no ‘Vidya’, no true knowledge, but remains entangled in
‘Avidya’, ignorance.

The knowledge that all plurality – consequently all proximity in space, all
succession in time, all interdependence of cause and effect, all contrast of
subject and object – has no reality in the highest sense.

“The scholars give various names to that which is only One.” [Rig-Veda
1.164.46]

It is implied therein that plurality depends solely upon words (a mere

matter of words) and that ‘unity alone is real’.

The philosophy of Yajnavalkya, as it meets us in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad,

can be comprised in the sentence: “The Atman is the knowing subject in us.”
Hence it follows:
1. That the ‘Atman’ as the knowing subject, is itself always unknowable;
2. That there is not and never can be for us reality outside of the ‘Atman’.

The four states of the ‘Atman’ are:

1. Waking
2. Dream sleep
 3. Deep sleep (‘Sushupti’) i.e. deep, dreamless sleep in which the soul
becomes temporarily one with ‘Brahman’ and enjoys a corresponding
unsurpassable bliss
4. The fourth state, usually called ‘Turiya’, in which that disappearance of the
manifold universe and the union with ‘Brahman’ on which the deep sleep
depends takes place not as before unconsciously, but with continued and
perfect consciousness.

The first three states are denoted by the mystical names: ‘Vaishwanara’, ‘Taijasa’
and ‘Prajna’. The waking soul is called ‘Vaishwanara’ perhaps because all men in
this waking hours have a world in common, but in dream each his own; the
dreaming soul ‘Taijasa’, probably because then the ‘Atman’ alone is its own light;
the deep-sleeping soul ‘Prajna’, because in deep sleep the ‘Atman’ is temporarily
one with the ‘Prajna Atman’ i.e. ‘Brahman’.

The doctrine of the ‘transmigration of the soul’, from Upanishadic times

down to the present, has held a foremost position in Indian thought and
exercises still the greatest practical influence.

Each life with all its actions and sufferings is on the one hand the
inevitable consequence of the actions of a former birth, and conditions on
the other hand by the actions committed in it the next succeeding life.

Love of life is the strongest of all the instincts implanted in human nature. In order
to preserve life we make any sacrifice. We desire a long life for ourselves and our
friends.

It is a natural idea that finds expression in all the systems of philosophy, when
men regard that which for them is the first principle of things and the ultimate
basis of the universe as at the same time the highest aim of personal endeavor.

We are all emancipated already (how could we otherwise become so!), but “just
as he who does not know the place of a hidden treasure fails to find it, though he
passes over it constantly, so all these creatures fail to find the world of Brahman,
though they daily (in deep sleep) enter into it; for by unreality are they turned
aside”. [Chhandogya Upanishad 8.3.2]
The knowledge of the Atman does not effect emancipation, it is emancipation; for
he who possesses it has found the existence of the universe as well as his own
bodily and individual existence to be an illusion (‘Maya’).

The metaphysical truth of the teaching of the Upanishads is contained in the

following:
• The ‘Atman’ is unknowable.
• The ‘Atman’ is sole reality.
• The intuitive knowledge of the ‘Atman’ is emancipation.

Emancipation consists in the consciousness of unity with the ‘Atman’ as

the first principle of all things.

In the conception of unity as it is expressed in the words of Rig-Veda: “The

sages give many names to that which is one only” – the fundamental thought of
the whole teaching of the Upanishads lay already hidden in germ. For this verse,
strictly understood, really asserts that all plurality, consequentially all proximity in
space, all succession in time, all relation of cause and effect, all interdependence
of subject and object, rests only on words, and that unity is in full sense real.

‘Yajnavalkya’ of the ‘Brihadaranyaka Upanishad’ laid the foundation of the

Upanishad Doctrine which can be summed as follows:
• The ‘Atman’ is the knowing subject within us.
• The ‘Atman’ as the knowing subject is itself unknowable.
• The ‘Atman’ is the sole reality.

These three thoughts are the kernel of the Upanishad teaching, and with it
became permanently the innermost kernel of the entire religious and
philosophical belief of India.

Review: Satyendra Nath Dwivedi