Svetasvatara Upanishad

ŚVETĀŚVATAROPANIṢAD

प्रथमोऽध्यायः

CHAPTER ONE

हरिः ॐ ॥ ब्रह्मवादिनो वदन्ति ।

किं कारणं ब्रह्म कुतः स्म जाता जीवाम केन क्व च संप्रतिष्ठा ।

अधिष्ठिताः केन सुखेतरेषु वर्तामहे ब्रह्मविदो व्यवस्थाम् ॥१॥

ब्रह्मावादिनः students of Brahman वदन्ति discuss: किम् what कारणम् cause? ब्राह्म Brahman? कुतः whence or why जाताः स्मः we are born? केन due to what जीवामःwe live? क्व Where च and सम्प्रतिष्ठा final rest? केन by whom or what अधिष्ठिता controlled सुखेतरेषु in happiness and Misery ब्रहाविदः knowers of Brahman व्यवस्थाम् law वर्तामहेwe abide?

Students of Brahman (i.e. the Vedas) discuss (among themselves): What is the cause?¹ (Is it) Brahman? Whence² are we born? Why³ do we live? Where⁴ is our final rest? Under⁵ whose orders are we, who know the Brahman, subjected to the law of happiness and misery?

[NOTES—The Upaniṣad begins with an account of a discussion carried on by some students of the Veda with regard to the ultimate problems of philosophy and religion.

1. Cause—The first doubt deals with the problem of causation. It analyses itself as follows: What is the nature of causation? Is it necessary that everything should have a cause? If so, what is the final cause of this universe? Can it be Brahman? How can the Absolute Brahman, unrelated to anything else—the one without a second—be the cause of anything? If at all it could be the cause, what is the nature of this causal Brahman? Is it the material cause, or the efficient cause, or both? Or, can it be that some other non-spiritual entity such as time, nature, etc., is the first cause, and not Brahman? All these seem to be condensed in the first question raised.

2. Whence are we born?—The next question is with regard to the mystery of creation. Why should the universe come into existence, if at all it is a thing created? How can the imperfect come out of the perfect, the finite out of the infinite? If it is not created, why should it appear to be an effect, and why should everything in this universe seem under the necessity of having an origin? If man in his real nature is Brahman Itself, why should there be so much variety in this world? Why should Brahman forsake Its supreme bliss and take on this individual aspect? This seems to be the purport of the second doubt.

3. Why do we live?—The third doubt is with regard to the mystery of life itself. The origin of life, its purpose, its relation to the rest of the universe and allied questions are implied in it.

4. Where is our final rest?—The fourth doubt deals with the mystery of death. The fate of the individual after death—whether he is annihilated, reborn or absorbed in Brahman—is a matter of deep interest to the religious mind.

5. Under whose orders etc.—The last doubt deals with the problem of evil. Why should there be suffering in this world? If man is free and is master of himself, would he willingly choose the life of suffering? How can the existence of suffering under a merciful Providence be explained? Are there proper methods of escape from this, and if so, why does not man have recourse to these methods and be free—especially those who know these methods from a study of the scriptures?

The next Mantra points out briefly the nature of Manana (reflection by the ‘ Neti, Neti’ method, or the process of elimination.]

कालः स्वभावो नियतिर्य दृच्छा भूतानि योनिः पुरुष इति चिन्त्या ।

संयोग एषां नत्वात्मभावा दात्माप्यनीशः सुखदुःखहेतोः ॥२॥

कालः time, स्वभाव:nature, नियति: law, य दृच्छा chance, भूतानि matter, योनिः energy, पुरुषः intelligence, इति thus चिन्त्या cannot bear examination, न nor तु even एषाम् of these संयोगः combination, आत्मभावात् due to identity, their own birth, and to the existence of the self. आत्मा the individual soul अपि also अनीशः not master of itself सुखदुःखहेतोःbecause of happiness and misery.

Time, nature, law, chance, matter, energy, intelligence—neither these, nor a combination of these, can bear examination because of their own birth, identity and the existence of the self. The self also is not a free agent, being under the sway of happiness and misery.

[NOTES—The various possible explanations for the riddle of the universe are here considered one by one, and rejected as unsatisfactory. To explain a riddle is to relate it to something which we already know through the law of causation. A cause is something which must invariably and immediately precede the effect. To explain the universe, therefore, is to find out something which must necessarily and immediately precede it, and a knowledge of which is essential before we can understand the universe. The various possible explanations offered cannot bear scrutiny, as we shall see.

First let us take time. The fact that things are born and exist in time may make it a plausible explanation of the world. There are however serious objections to this. Time is but a part of the framework of thought itself, and without thought it cannot exist. Thought itself is a part of the universe whose explanation we seek. Therefore to consider time as an explanation of the universe will amount to reducing the former into an explanation of itself. It would be the same thing as to say that the cause of time is time itself, which is no explanation. Again, time, though it appears to be eternal, always changes from the past through the present to the future, and it would seem to consist of innumerable moments which come into existence and die away just as any other object we can conceive of. It will also be seen on self-analysis that the cognizing self always precedes the cognition of time. So time cannot be considered as the first cause which brought the universe into existence. The word ‘ātmabhāva’ gives the three reasons explained above as to why time cannot be considered as a cause. These are oneness with the universe, subjection to birth, and existence of the self prior to it.

Next with regard to nature. Nature may here be taken in the sense of inherent property, or as representing the vast expanse of spacial objectivity. Nothing can come into existence if it were against its nature to be born. So the presence of nature may be considered a necessary antecedent to the birth of the universe, and as such, nature may be taken as its cause. Again, nothing can exist, or come into birth, or be conceived of, except as an object in space. Therefore spacial objectivity, being a necessary and inevitable antecedent, may plausibly be considered as a cause of the universe.

But we find on scrutiny that in either case, nature cannot be considered a cause for the very same reasons as are condensed in the aphoristic expression ‘ātma-bhāvāt.’ Thus an inherent property can at best exist only in some object, and apart from the object it cannot have separate existence as a cause. Spacial objectivity, again, like time, is one of the frameworks of thought itself, and cannot exist as an antecedent to thought. So in either case nature cannot be considered as a cause of the universe of which it is a part. The existence of the cognizing self is again necessary for knowing nature. For this reason also nature cannot be the cause. Moreover to say that the cause of the universe is its own nature is virtually to confess our ignorance