Kathopanishad (Madhva commentary)

by Srisa Chandra Vasu | 1909 | 21,449 words | ISBN-13: 9789332869165

The English translation of the Kathopanishad (Katha-upanishad) including the commentary of Madhva called the Bhasya. It is an important text associated with the Krishna Yajurveda and discusses topics such as the nature of Atman, karma, rebirth and the soul The Kathopanishad is also known as: Kaṭhopaniṣad (कठोपनिषद्, kathopanisad), Kaṭha-paniṣad (क...

Chapter 2 - Second Valli

Mantra 2.1.

1. Different is the Good and different indeed is the Pleasant; both these towards diverse objects draw down the man. Of these two, for him who accepts the Good, there is freedom; but he who chooses the Pleasant, misses the end.—30.

Mantra 2.2.

2. The Good and the Pleasant both, through past causes, approach the jīva. The wise fully examining them, distinguishes (them). The wise chooses the Good over the Pleasant. The ordinary man chooses the Pleasant objects and their acquisition and preservation.—31.

Mantra 2.3.

3.O Naciketas! Thou having pondered over all desires—the attractive forms, hast renounced them. Thou didst not accept the golden fetters with which many a man binds himself voluntarily.—32.

Madhva’s commentary called the Bhāṣya:

Sṛṅkā [Sṛṅkām] means fetters.

Note.—In Mantra I, 16 the word Sṛṅkām was already explained as a necklace or a chain. Where was the necessity of explaining this word here again? The Sṛṅkā there was a golden chain given by Yama to Naciketas and the latter had accepted that as an additional gift. But it could not be the same Sṛṅkām referred to here; for here Yama speaks of a Sṛṅkām which Naciketas had rejected. Therefore the Sṛṅkām of this verse has a different, meaning from that of I. 16. It means the fetters of pleasure which bind the unthinking humanity.

Mantra 2.4.

4. These two, Avidyā and what is known as Vidyā, are distant and wide apart from each other, opposing and different-pointed. I think Naciketas to be a seeker of wisdom, for all these temptations did not move thee.—33.

Mantra 2.5.

5. Dwelling in the midst of Ignorance, but thinking themselves wise and learned, the fools wander about hither and thither, as blind men led by the blind.—34.

Mantra 2.6.

6. The way to the supreme Liberation does not appear to the child deluded by the illusion of wealth and acting carelessly. He who thinks that this world only exists and not the other, falls again and again under my control.—35.

Mantra 2.7.

7. To many the Lord is not even an object of hearing, while many who have heard of Him do not know Him fully, Rare is the teacher, and able is His finder. Rare is the knower, even when taught properly.—36.

Mantra 2.8.

8. The Lord cannot be well understood, when taught by a sectarian, for he describes Him as inferior to his own deity. The Lord, however, is full of all qualities and has been so conceived by the Vedas. Nor is the true knowledge of him obtained when taught by an Ananya (Pantheist or an idealist). The Lord is smaller than the jīva whose size is that of an atom. He is inconceivable.—37.

Note.—It is not understood well when taught by a person of Lower Intellect, for it has been diversely discussed (by such scholars without coining to any satisfactory conclusion). When taught by a non-spiritual teacher, there is no going into (understanding) it. Because it is subtler than the measure of an atom, and not to be argued.

The sentence ananya prokte gatiḥ atra nāsti, has been the subject of different explanations. Śaṅkara gives the following four explanations:—

1. Ananya—one who does not see another, who sees all as one, an Advaitin. Gatiḥ = doubt. “When taught by an Advaitin, there is left no doubt about it.”

2. Ananya—not—another, not different from Brahmā, the ātmā being the same as Brahma. Gatiḥ—knowledge or object of knowledge. “When taught as non-different from Brahmā, then there remains no other object of knowledge here”—for that is the highest state of knowledge when the unity of the self is realised.

3. Or gatiḥ may mean sāṃsara gatiḥ, going the round of transmigration. “When the non-otherness is taught then there is no coming back here.”

4. Or the word might be agatiḥ, “want of penetration or comprehension.” “When taught (by a teacher who has realised) the non-otherness, then there is no want of comprehension here.” For such a teacher does not merely teach by words, but opens the interior faculty of the hearer, by which he is made capable of understanding the nonduality.

According to Madhva School, this verse means: When taught by a learned but not a (jñānī) person, it is inferior teaching, because it has been diversely discussed and is not easy of understanding. But when taught by a non-difference-seer (an Advaitin), there is no knowledge at all (not even of an inferior kind) about it. It is subtler than the measure of an atom (and therefore is not subject of perception); It is not to be understood by reasoning (and therefore not subject of inference).

The word “anya” should be taken in this verse in the same sense, as in the next verse. There Śaṅkara explains “anya” to mean a teacher versed in scriptures (āgamas) not merely a scholar and a sophist, but a student of sacred science. Ananya therefore would mean, a person other than such a teacher; a mere learned man, a non-spiritual teacher. Madhva is consistent in both verses—in verse 9 he takes anya to mean “another”—one who knows himself other than or separate from Brahman. In verse 8, therefore, “ananya” means one who identifies himself with Brahman.

The Rāmāṇuja School explanation is “The understanding (ava-gatiḥ) which a person gets about the Ātmā, when taught by a person who has realised Brahman and Ātmā, is impossible to he attained when taught by a person of lower capacity. Or, when taught by a person who has realised Brahman and Ātmā, then there is no wandering (gatiḥ) in Saṃsāra. Or ananya may moan not other, i.e., one’s own self, i.e., when one tries to learn it by his own effort, he cannot enter into it. Or ananya may refer to avara of the first line: when taught by a lower mind there is no understanding of it.”

Madhva’s commentary called the Bhāṣya:

The word Ananya means “he who does not realise that the Lord is separate (anya) and he is separate (anya).” If such a person teaches another, then there is no understanding of Brahman. Gati [gatiḥ] means knowledge. (In other words, the teaching of a person who is a monist, and does not know the difference between jīva and the Lord, and thinks them to be identical is anfractuous.)’While if the “anya” or the person who realises that he is separate from the Lord, declares Brahman then there is understanding of Brahman: as the mantra (11. 9) says: “when declared by an Anya, there is clear knowledge, O dear.” So also in the Brahma Vaivarta Purāṇa “The man who does not know the difference between the jīvas and Viṣṇu, and those also who follow the teachings of such a person, can never get Supreme wisdom—jñāna [jñānam]—so long as they entertain this erroneous notion.”

Mantra 2.9.

9. This belief which thou hast got, can not be brought about nor destroyed by argument. When taught by the True Teacher the Self becomes easily realised. O dearest! strong is thy resolution. Inquirers like thee, O Naciketas! are not many.—38.

Mantra 2.10.

10. I know that the Eternal Brahman is a “Treasure and that the Permanent is not obtained by those who have no strong devotion to that Permanent. Therefore I even, with faculties (mind, senses, etc.,) fixed on the Eternal Brahman, have performed meditation on Nāciketa Fire and have thus obtained the Eternal.—39.

Note.—This shows that Yama knows the Brahma-vidyā and all his offerings of wealth, etc., to Naciketas was to test his Vairāgya and Viveka. It farther shows that the Eternal Alpha—Lord Viṣṇu—the A-nitya—is a śevadhi—a store house of all sweetness. Viṣṇu is dhruvam—fixed and firm—and cannot be obtained by those whose faith is shaky and not firm. With the faculties (dravyaiḥ) fully absorbed in the Eternal Alpha (Anityaiḥ) one obtains that Eternal.

Madhva’s commentary called the Bhāṣya:

The word anitya [anityam] is a compound of “a+nityam”. The word “a” means Viṣṇu so “a nityam” means the Eternal Viṣṇu. He who has Viṣṇu for his śevadhi or treasure, has an Eternal Treasure. Yama says “I know that the treasure consisting of “a” Viṣṇu is eternal and unending.” [The words “anityaiḥ dravyaiḥ” also must bo similarly explained. They should be read as “nityaiḥ a-dravyaiḥ.” The compound adravyaiḥ means “by the things belonging to “a” or Viṣṇu.”]—By things like mind, etc., constantly engaged on “a” or Viṣṇu; through the means of such eternal things like mind, etc., when fixed on Viṣṇu who is called “a” and “nitya”; I, Yama, have attained the Nitya or the Lord. For the Lord called Dhruva or unchanging cannot be attained by those who are adhruva, i.e., who are not devoted to t he Lord, who are devoid of bhakti for the Dhruva.

Mantra 2.11.

11.O Naciketas! thou art wise; for with firm resolve thou hast renounced the attainment of desires, having seen (the Brahman who is) the Foundation of the universe, the Infinity of knowledge, the Shore where there is no fear, the Mighty one praised by all hymns, chanted by the Great Ones, and the Refuge of all.—40.

Madhva’s commentary called the Bhāṣya:

The words “krator ānantyam” mean the infinity or endlessness of knowledge (kratu=knowledge). Since the knowledge of the Lord is endless and infinite, therefore He cannot be understood in His entirety by all the Vedas (stoma=Vedas). The words “stomam mahat” mean greater than even all the Vedas. The employment of the term urugāya in this Mantra shows that Naciketa’s third question had no reference to the survival of the soul or human personality after bodily death, but to the Lord who is called here the Infinity of knowledge, Greater than all the Vedas and Urugāya. [The word Urugāya has already been shown to be the name of the Lord exclusively. Nor can it be. said that the verses applying to Brahman may be applied to the Jīva also, for both are identical: because there is no proof that they are identical: while the scriptures show that they are separate, such as the following.]

“Jīvatman is like an arrow and Bramhan the target” Muṇḍakopaniṣad] II. 2. 4. This also shows the Jīva and Bramhan are separate, for one is the target and the other is an arrow. “Like an arrow let him be fixed in Him” Muṇḍakopaniṣad II 2. 4. this also shows that the Jīva is the worshipper and the Lord is the worshipped. So also in Kaṭhopaniṣad I. 3. 2. we find Brahman described as the bank of safety for those who desire to cress the ocean of saṃsāra. So also “he becomes like Brahman” Kaṭhopaniṣad II. 4. 15. This also shows that the Jīva becomes similar to Brahman and not Bramhan itself. Thus all these texts show that everywhere difference between Jīva and Brahman is taught in the Upaniṣads and not that the Jīva is identical with Brahman.

In the verse I. 3. 2. Yama says “May we be able to know the Naciketas Fire,” where the meaning is “may we know the Lord in-dwelling in Naciketa Fire otherwise the attributes given there such as “the shore of security,” “the imperishable,” “the goal of worshippers” become inappropriate.

This also shows that the second question asked by Naciketa. related to Viṣṇu and not to lire. The verse I. 2. 11. should be construed as “urugāyaṃ dṛṣṭvā kāmasyāptimatyasrākṣīḥ” “having seen the Lord Sung by the Great Ones, &c., thou hast renounced the attainment of desires.”

The third boon of Naciketas does not relate to the survival of the Jīva after death, because Naciketas himself had died and was consciously conversing with Yama, and so he could not entertain any doubt as to Jīva surviving death or not.

[If it be said that Naciketas did not die, but went bodily to Yama’s abode, then it would contradict the text where the father cursed the son by saying “die thou.” Moreover in another recension (Taitt. Brah. III. 11. 8.) we read “pitaramevajīvannayāni” “let me, coming back to life, return to my father” the word “Jīvan” shows that Naciketa had died actually and so the first boon he asked was to get back life.]

Mantra 2.12.

12. The wise leaves behind worldly joy and sorrow, having realised that the Supreme Self, the Lord Himself, is the means of attaining liberation, and that He is difficult to be seen, is most mysterious, is in the hearts of all Jīvas, dwells in the Muktas, and is the Ancient of Days.—41.

Madhva’s commentary called the Bhāṣya:

The word “gahvareṣṭha [gahvareṣṭham]” does not mean “He who stays in great difficulties and dangers” but “He who dwells in the Mukta Jīvas.” The Muktas are called gahvara, lit. deep and inaccessible because worldly and non-free Jīvas cannot know them or reach them, the only means of knowing them is the śāstra or the scripture.

Mantra 2.13.

13. Having heard this (teaching about Brahman) and fully comprehending Him, the mortal, who separates (Him from the Jivas) reaches this Subtle Upholder, and rejoices because he has found the Source of all joy. I think that for Naciketas the abode of Brahman is open.—42.

Note.—This shows that the state of Mukti is not a joyless state as the phrase harśa śokan jahāti of the last verse may lead one to infer. In the state of Manana or deep thinking, there should not be allowed the entrance of any emotion or feeling into the mind. The state of Manana is without joy and grief, if it is true Manana. But after Manana comes realisation—when the Jīva sees the Lord—that is a state of pure emotion, deep, intense, ineffable bliss. The last verse used the word matvā—“thinking out.” The present one uses the word āpya “reaching.” One is the state of “thinking,” the other is the state of “attaining.” This verse describes the state of Mukti or reaching the Lord.

Madhva’s commentary called the Bhāṣya:

The word pravṛhya means having discriminated the Lord as separated from the Jīva.

[Note.—The word pravṛhya means making separate or knowing separately. The question is separating what from whom? It may mean separating the Jīva from his various bodies or sheaths; or separating the Jīva from the Lord. It cannot mean the first, because the latter part of this verse shows “enam āpya sa modate” reaching Him he rejoices. This shows that the discrimination is from a Being, by reaching whom, one rejoices. Therefore, the separation meant here is to know that the Jīva is not Brahman, but that the Brahman is an object to be attained by the jīva.

How do you say that this verse refers to the state of the Muktas? and not to ordinary jīvas? This question is answered by the author by an extract from Mahāvārāha Purāṇa.]

The Mukta having attained Him, who is the source of all joys, rejoices constantly, having also realised that Viṣṇu dwelling in the Mukta jīva is separate from the jīva.

Note.—The topic here is not jīva but Brahman, for the question that Naciketas asks in the very next verse is “Tell me that who is different from the holy and the sinful from the cause and the effect from the past and the future” and the reply is that such a being is Brahman, all the Vedas declare Him; to attain whom they perform austerities, etc. All this shows that Bramhan is the topic and therefore the word pravṛhya must refer to distinguish Brahman from the jīva.

Mantra 2.14.

11. Different from the holy, different from the sinful, different from this insentient universe of cause and effect, other than the past, present and future, is the Lord, Tell that to me exactly as thou knowest Him.—43.

Mantra 2.15.

Om [oṃ], it is either the sound or the thing signified by it. Om. He is full of all auspicious qualities, worship him as such. “Iti”, thus. It shows die end of the teaching. “Etat”, this.

15. Whose form and essential nature all the Vedas declare and in order to attain Whom they prescribe austerities, desiring to know Whom the great ones perform Brahmacarya, that Symbol I will briefly tell thee, it is Om.—44

Madhva’s commentary called the Bhāṣya:

This indestructible Brahman is called Viṣṇu. He is the Supreme and unchangeable, knowing Him as the Supreme, the refuge of all, the jīva undoubtedly gets liberation.

Mantra 2.17.

17.—This refuge is the best, this refuge is the highest, having known this refuge, lie is honored in Brahma-loka.—46.

Mantra 2.18

18. The Wise (the Mukta) no more undergoes (compulsory) birth or death, because this Lord also is not born from any cause (nor does He die, and so the Mukta by seeing the Lord is freed from birth and death). (The jīva as such is eternal) and so never was born (nor can ever die). It is unborn, eternal, changeless, and though dwelling in the town (of the body), is not destroyed when the body is slaughtered. - 47.

Note.—He is not born, nor doth he die; nor having been, ceaseth he any more to be; unborn, perpetual, eternal, and ancient, he is not slain when the body is slaughtered.

Madhva’s commentary called the Bhāṣya:

The Mukta or the Perfect Jñānin, called here Vipaścit is never born again nor dies, in the sense that there is no compulsory incarnations and disincarnations for him. Why? The verse gives two reasons. First, na “ayam kutaścit”—‘This Lord came from no where, was never born (nor dies)—therefore the knower of the Lord, also never takes birth nor dies. Secondly, “na babhūva kaścit”, the jīva was never born. Tn its essential (svarūpa [svarūpa?]) nature, the jīva is unborn and incapable of dying. In its own form, every jīva, as a jīva, is unborn and undying. The Mukta Jīva has however this additional attribute, that it never assumes any body, and so the ordinary birth and death arc no longer ascribable to him. This jīva is purāṇa or dweller-in-the-town. But it does not die with the destruction of the town (the body).

The origin and destruction in the sense of the birth of a body and the destruction of the body do not take place in the case of the wise jīva (Muktas) because Viṣṇu Himself is never born nor dies, therefore those who have seen Viṣṇu are never born nor are subject to death. As the jīva in its essential nature is eternal and so is not born, nor dies, the wise (Mukta) has this additional quality that he is never born nor dies in the sense of compulsorily taking a body or leaving it.

Every jīva is in its essential nature unborn, eternal, unchanging and dwelling in the body (purāṇa equal to puram deham aṇati gaccati).

Because this Lord was never born from anywhere and from any cause and never dies, therefore the knower of the Lord also, the vipaścita (the wise) is never born nor dies. Moreover no jīva in its essential nature is ever born, but is said to be bor n when it assumes a body and is said to die when it leaves the body. The wise however has not this sort of birth and death also, because he never comes in relationship to any body (nor gets embodied) because he has no Karmas. Every jīva being immortal in its essential nature, he who thinks that the jīva is killed or that it kills (another jīva) is ignorant for slaying and being slain has reference to the body and not to the jīva.

Thus (the Eternal, Undying Lord) dwells in the cavity (of the heart) of the eternal jīva.

Mantra 2.19.

19. If the slayer thinks to slay, if the slain thinks himself to be slain, they both do not understand (its nature), for this one neither slays the jīva nor is the jiva slain.—48.

Mantra 2.20.

20.—More subtle than the subtlest, greater than the greatest, the Ātman resides in the cavity of this jīva, Him the firm of faith in Viṣṇu sees: and through the grace of that Creator becomes free from grief and sees the superiority of the Lord over himself.—49.

Madhva’s commentary called the Bhāṣya:

The word akratu [akratuḥ] means “having firm faith in Viṣṇu.” The letter means Viṣṇu and kratu means “firm faith.” He who has firm faith in (or Viṣṇu) is akratu.

The words “mahīmānam ātmanaḥ” do not mean “the greatness of the Self,” but “the superiority to the self (Jīvaḥ” |The mukta realises the Superiority or greatness, (main-mānam—mahāmānam) of the Lord to all selves or jīvas]. As says a text:—“In the Śruti “mahimānam ātmanaḥ” means that Viṣṇu is greater both in “quality and quantity than the jīva hence He Lord Viṣṇu is called jīvāt mahimā greater than the jīva.”

Mantra 2.21.

21. Sitting He goes afar, resting He moves everywhere, who other than my Self is able to know that God who is the dispenser of pleasure and pain.—50.

Madhva’s commentary called the Bhāṣya:

The phrase “Lord goes far by mere sitting,” etc., shows His lorldliness and divinity. As says a text:—“Sitting He goes to distant places, lying down He visits every where, because by His lordly power, Viṣṇu brings about the most contrary things.”

Mantra 2.22.

22.—The wise, having known that self as resting unembodied in these changing bodies, as great and all-pervading, becomes fully liberated.—51.

Mantra 2.23.

23. This Ātmā is not to be obtained by many explanations, nor the intellect, nor by much learning. He whom alone this Ātmā elects, by him is He obtained: for him this Ātmā reveals His own nature.—52.

Note.—In verse 20 it was said that the grace of the Dhātā or the Lord is necessary to see Him. This verse also reiterates the same idea, and shows that the means of getting grace is not much scholarship, intellect or memory but bhakti: and is entirely dependent on the will of the Lord. Thus Jñāna and Mokṣa result from Bhakti and the grace of the Lord. Are then śāma, dama, etc., unnecessary? The next verse answers this.

Mantra 2.24.

If He is visible by His grace only, what is the use of Vairāgya, &c.? To this the Śruti replies that jñāna is necessary in order to get that grace.

24. He who has ceased from evil deeds and is controlled (in senses), concentrated (in intellect) and controlled (in mind) obtains this Ātmā through the knowledge (of Brahman).—53.

Note.—This shows that śāma, dama, samādhāna, &c., are also means of knowing the Lord: for If is grace would naturally fall on such a person.

Mantra 2.25.

25. Who thus can know where that (Self) dwells, of whom Brahma and Vāyu are both as food, and Rudra but a condiment.—54.

Note.—Or that God whose food is Brahma and Vāyu and whose condiment is Rudra is known to Brahma because He dwells in Brahma. Or he who knows Him thus dwells where He dwells.”

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: