chhAndogya upaniShad 6.1.4 - 6.1.7

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, sunderh wrote:

>

> Sw. Swahananda's translation of Shankara-Bhashya 6:1:7 -

>

> "verily, my revered teachers did not know this; for if

> they had known it, why would they have not told it to me?

> However, revered father, please teach it to me". "So be it,

> dear boy", said the father.

>

>

>

> "Though the teacher's defect should never be mentioned, yet he spoke

> of it, because he was afraid of being sent again to the house of the

> teacher. Thus his motive must be construed as one of fear and not of

> disrespect for the teacher."

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

>

 

 

namaste

 

svetaketu's mental attitude at the beginning of uddAlaka's

teaching:

 

At the time of uddAlaka's teachings, svetaketu's mental

attitude is variously described by various commentators.

I do not have shankarabhAShya original with me, hence cannot

say how shri shankara saw it, but I have various translations.

The descriptions vary. The upaniShad by itself, being very

compact and concise in wording, does not touch on that except

in brief words. In 6.1.2, it is noted that svetaketu was arrogant

and conceited. The arrogance comes out of the thinking that he had

mastered all the vedA-s. The father (uddAlaka) says so much

addressing svetaketu (6.1.2). In 6.1.3, in answer to the father's

question, svetaketu requests the father to teach him that knowledge

by which the unknowable becomes known. My reading of this answer is

that svetaketu genuinely wanted to learn that teaching and requests

the father reverentially of that. Swamini vimalananda in 'TAT TVAM ASI'

says "wishing to add one more feather to his cap, and fascinated with

the idea of a knowledge which made eveything known, svetaketu asks his

father to teach It to him". That still makes svetaketu a stabdhaH.

I do not see it that way fully, but would like to hear List-members'

thoughts.

 

swami swahananda's commentary at the end of ch.u. 6.1.7 was posted

by shri sunder-ji and was quoted above. There, a motive was attributed

to svetaketu for saying the teachers did not know it (the motive being

the fear that he may be sent to gurukulam again). swami Gambhirananda's

commentary also expresses the same view. I would think svetaketu was

quite transparent in his statement. He showed reverence to the father;

he showed genuine interest in knowing AtmavidyA, and is prepared to

learn with a receptive mind. Yes, he was shown to be arrogant at

the beginning of the Section. But, arrogance can be of two ways;

one is when one tries to stick on to his own saying without

listening to the other view; second is when one is told that

he is arrogant by a more learned person, he listens to that person

with reverence and learns. svetaketu, I think, belongs to the

second category. For him to say that his teachers might not know

what uddAlakA was teaching is a rather serious statement; yet, it

can be interpreted that he felt genuinely that that may be the case,

and hence, may be, not unpardonable.

 

I would request members, who have access to shankarabhAShya original,

to throw more light on this. Any alternate reading of this section

by List members is also appreciated.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

 

uddAlaka, the first natural scientist

 

[This article is based on uddAlaka AruNi: the first natural

scientist; chapter 7 of HISTORY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

IN ANCIENT INDIA by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, and the

references contained therein]

 

One of the basic characteristics of modern scientific practice

is to either (i) formulate a theory and set up an experiment

to verify the theory, or (ii) make an observation and develop

a theory which is consistent with the observation. uddAlaka's

teaching is consistent with this practice.

 

The title of the first natural scientist is usually assigned

by western historians of science to Thales, the Greek natural

philosopher and thinker. It is the purpose of this article to

provide arguments that uddAlaka AruNi of chhAndogya upaniShad

fits this title much better than Thales. It will also be

pointed out that the teachings of uddAlaka seem to be distinct,

in emphasis, from the teachings of other great teachers of the

upaniShads (like yAjnavalkya, sanatkumAra and others) in that

uddAlaka uses the procedures of 'scientific logic' to put his

point across.

 

In this context, whether uddAlaka is a real person or not may

not be relevant. The point of interest is: a line of thought

has been initiated in this, the sixth chapter of the chhAndogya

upaniShad and the line of thought has been attributed to one

uddAlaka AruNi of Gautama clan. It is the purpose of this

article to show that that line of thought is probably the

earliest 'scientific' thinking.

 

Thales, his timing and his contributions

 

Thales of Miletus lived during 634-546 B.C.. He was usually

said to be the first human being who can be called a man of

science. He was the founder of Miletian school of cosmologists.

Thales predicted an eclipse of the sun on May 28, 585 B.C. He

is said to have introduced geometry into hellas and taught the

Egyptians how to determine the height of the pyramids from

their shadows. He is also said to have invented a method of

finding the distance of ships at sea. However, th most important

of Thales' contributions were his cosmological speculations. To

put it briefly, Ionians were concerned with the questions of the

type what is the material substance of which all things consist?

How did a manifold and ordered world arise out of the primitive

state of things? Thales was of the view that water is the ultimate

stuff of everything in nature. According to Burnet, Thales'

greatness would lie in his having asked the question rather than

in the particular answer. According to Farrington, the great renown

of Thales rests not on his geometry but on a new commonsense way of

looking at the world.

 

uddAlaka, in all probability, precedes Thales in time. The

upaniShads, particularly the early upaniShads, are more ancient

than the Early Greek times. As was mentioned in this thread

itself and also in many other contexts, trying to assign an

age for the upaniShads is and will be a fruitless exercise.

Even if it is conceded that chhAndogya is contemporary to

Thales period, yet, uddAlaka, being mentioned in the upaniShad

must have preceded Thales' time.

 

uddAlaka was in favour of a rational search for the ultimate

cause of everything in nature. He strongly recommended (to

svetaketu and through svetaketu to everyone that followed)

to be guided by direct observation.

 

uddAlaka stressed the concept of causality. Rather than looking

for cause in air or water, uddAlaka goes deeper and calls It

pure being, SAT, the Existence. Then he proceeded to explain

how the multiplicity of phenomena evolves from this SAT. From

this SAT, there evolved successively three primary elements,

which he calls heat, water and food. i.e., from the primeval

undifferentiated pure matter first evolves heat, from heat

water, and from water food. The tejas, ordinarily translated

as heat, exists nowhere as mere heat or heat pure and simple.

It is called heat because of the predominance of the heat

element in certain things, whereas the same things also

contain or are interwoven with a certain amount of water

and food. So also are water and food. Thus arriving at the

principles of heat, water and food, uddAlaka proceeds on

to explain the evolution of everything in the world from

these principles. In making of the man, he says that life

(prANa) in the human beings is the product of the finest

essence of water, while mind (manas) is the product of the

finest essence of food. He proves it by an experimental

demonstration. He asks his son svetaketu to spend 15 days

without eating any food, and drinking only water, so that life

can remain while the mind is weakened. After 15 days, he asks

the son to recite the vedA-s. The son replies that nothing

occurs to him, i.e., his mind is lost. Then uddAlaka asks

the son to go back, eat food for 15 days and then return.

When the son does it, having eaten food for 15 days,

he is asked to recite the vedA-s, which he is able to do.

Thus, it is experimentally demonstrated that it is food that

goes into making the mind. This the first design of an

experiment to prove something.

 

His experimentation of (i) mixing salt with water,

(ii) breaking up the seed of the nyagrodha tree successively

into smaller and smaller pieces may be viewed as fore-runners

to the procedures of modern experimentalists. We will see

what he tries to prove by these experiments, when we discuss

the relevant mantrA-s of the chhAndogya upaniShad. But, there

is no doubt that uddAlaka is a natural scientist of the first

order.

 

Now, I like to touch on briefly uddAlaka's teachings versus

other teachings of the upaniShads. There are many places in

the upaniShads where AtmavidyA is viewed as beyond the natural

sciences. MuNDAka upaniShad classifies knowledge as para and

apara vidyA, placing all sciences as the lower knowledge and

AtmavidyA as the highest knowledge. kaTha upaniShad says Atma

vidyA is beyond human intellect. nArada approaches teacher

sanatkumAra in chhAndogya upaniShad lamenting that his (nAradA's)

knowledge of all the sciences did not give him that bliss. Even

yAjnavalkya in Br^ihadAraNyaka u. cautions Gargi not to probe

too deeply with the intellect. It may be safe to say from all

this that AtmavidyA is beyond human intellect and these

upaniShadic teachers are not too much interested in observation

and experimentation. In contrast to this, uddAlaka sees the jagat

as a natural evolution from the SAT, without any involvement of

mysticism. It is further interesting that while jagat is seen as

a natural evolution, there is no mention in uddAlaka's teachings

of the origin of avidyA. Any thoughts on this from the learned

members?

 

I will take up section 2 of chapter 6 in a few days time.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

..

Murthygaru writes:

------------------------------

.......It may be safe to say from all

this that AtmavidyA is beyond human intellect and these

upaniShadic teachers are not too much interested in observation

and experimentation. In contrast to this, uddAlaka sees the

jagat

as a natural evolution from the SAT, without any involvement of

mysticism. It is further interesting that while jagat is seen as

 

a natural evolution, there is no mention in uddAlaka's teachings

 

of the origin of avidyA. Any thoughts on this from the learned

members?

-------------------------------

Wonderful. Lot of food for thought. Gummuluru Muthygaru has

brought out a revealing presentation based on the article of

Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya. It is very revealing to me, in the

sense that Uddalaka Aruni's scientific quest is put, as it were,

in contrast to the teaching of the other upanishadic teachers.

For me this is new.

The teaching of the Upanishads has always been that the Atma

VidyA is not just an intellectual exercise, it has to be an

intuitive revelation. Set against this background Murthygaru's

reading of the further mantras in Chandogya Upanishad should be

doubly welcome to readers who prefer a scientific way of

thinking rather than the Upanishadic approach to the Truth. I

am looking forward to Murthygaru's posts. In the meantime let me

do some nidhidhyAsana on this interesting post of Murthygaru!

 

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

 

 

 

Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

http://finance.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

> >

> >

> > "Though the teacher's defect should never be mentioned, yet he

spoke

> > of it, because he was afraid of being sent again to the house of

the

> > teacher. Thus his motive must be construed as one of fear and not

of

> > disrespect for the teacher."

>

> swami swahananda's commentary at the end of ch.u. 6.1.7

>

> I would request members, who have access to shankarabhAShya

original,

> to throw more light on this. Any alternate reading of this section

> by List members is also appreciated.

 

Namaste,

 

This is actually not Sw. Swahananda's commentary, but a

translation of Shankara's bhashya. The original reads as follows

Itrans notation] :

 

na vai nuunaM bhagavantaH puujaavantaH guravaH mama ye te etat

yadbhavadukta.n vastu naavedishhuH na vij~naatavantaH nuunam.h |

yat yadi hi avedishhyan viditavantaH etadvastu kathaM me guNavate

bhaktaayaanugataaya naavakshhyan noktavantaH tenaahaM manye

na viditavanta iti | avaachyamapi gurornyagbhaavamavaadiit

punargurukulaM prati preshhaNabhayaat.h | ato bhagavaa.nstveva me

mahya.n tadvastu yena sarvaj~natva.n j~naatena me syaat tadbraviitu

kathayatu ityuktaH pitovaacha tathaastu somyeti ||

 

 

[samata Books - 1910, 1983, 1999 reprint]

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

>

> namaste.

> uddAlaka, the first natural scientist

>

> [This article is based on uddAlaka AruNi: the first natural

> scientist; chapter 7 of HISTORY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

> IN ANCIENT INDIA by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, and the

> references contained therein]

 

Namaste,

 

uddAlaka AruNi perhaps can be likened to Aristotle, who extended

Plato's ideas to the world perceived by the senses [this may be an

over-simplification].

 

There is a celebrated dialogue between Yajnavalkya and Uddalaka

on the 'antaryaamin', in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3:7:1-23, which ends

by Yajnavalkya 'silencing' Uddalaka!

 

Rishis in all times and places never cared about 'priority' of

discoveries! They were after 'eternal truth' that could be lived at

any time and in any place. We should continue to emulate them in this

respect, and not create regional/historical/national myths to be

proud of on any of those bases. The Spirit expresses Itself in

infinite ways to suit different conditions and needs, at different

times and places.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 24 Aug 2002, sunderh wrote:

> [...]

> There is a celebrated dialogue between Yajnavalkya and Uddalaka

> on the 'antaryaamin', in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3:7:1-23, which ends

> by Yajnavalkya 'silencing' Uddalaka!

> Rishis in all times and places never cared about 'priority' of

> discoveries! They were after 'eternal truth' that could be lived at

> any time and in any place. We should continue to emulate them in this

> respect, and not create regional/historical/national myths to be

> proud of on any of those bases. The Spirit expresses Itself in

> infinite ways to suit different conditions and needs, at different

> times and places.

 

> Regards,

> Sunder

 

 

namaste shri sunder-ji,

 

Your comment is very valuable. The purpose of my article

is not to promote regionalism or say one is better than the

other. I came across the article by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya,

found it interesting enough in the new angles raised and

thought it useful to summarize for our List with the hope

that it would generate some healthy discussion. The article

by Chattopadhyaya went much deeper into comparing scientific

contributions by Thales and uddAlaka which is not relevant

for our contemplation of chhAndogya. The purpose of my article

is to show (i) the scientific nature of uddAlaka's teaching,

(ii) contrast it with the teachings of yAjnavalkya and

sanatkumAra. My understanding of upaniShads is as yAjnavalkya

and sanatkumAra taught. While I admire uddAlaka's teaching,

it is to be admitted that it (uddAlaka's teaching) emphasizes

experimentation and observation, an approach far removed from

what yAjnavalkya and sanatkumAra taught where intuition is

emphasized. [Another place where experimentation and observation

was used in the upaniShads is the teaching by ajAtashatru in the

Br^ihadAraNyaka u.]. If not anything, Chattopadhyaya's article

pointed to me what I think is the subtle difference in uddAlaka's

and yAjnavalkya's teachings. I think, as shri profvk-ji also

said in an earlier post, recognizing this subtle difference gives

us greater insight into AtmavidyAas taught in the upaniShads.

I fully agree with you that the Atman expresses Itself in

different ways to different people in different times.

I will go through fully the yAjnavalkya-uddAlaka saMvAda in

the Br^ihadAraNyaka which you gave reference to.

 

p.s. I brought this point (subtly different approach, if any,

of yAjnavalkya and uddAlaka's teachings) in our local study

group. The thinking there seems to be that the teaching is

usually appropriate to the disciple seeking the Knowledge.

uddAlaka's teaching is appropriate to svetaketu, while

yAjnavalkya's comments are appropriate in the court of

king Janaka. I am not convinced of that argument, but I will

put it here for further thought.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

--

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

>

My understanding of upaniShads is as yAjnavalkya

> and sanatkumAra taught. While I admire uddAlaka's teaching,

> it is to be admitted that it (uddAlaka's teaching) emphasizes

> experimentation and observation, an approach far removed from

> what yAjnavalkya and sanatkumAra taught where intuition is

> emphasized.

 

Namaste Murthygaru,

 

I am sorry I missed the thrust of your presentation.

 

However, it must be remembered that the 'science' of Veda

mantras is as much empirical as the current notions. Yajnavalkya has

the distinction of authoring the whole of Shukla Yajurveda!

 

The following references will show the same 'scientific'

reasoning went into the teaching of Narada by Sanatkumara as in

Shvetaketu's by Uddalaka.

 

http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap33.htm

 

http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Kak_S/0/1/0/all/0/1

 

http://www.icrcanada.org/pranagk.html

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder