As an example of the best style of the Upanishads we will cite a favorite passage (given no less than four times in various versions) where the doctrine of absorption is most distinctly taught under the form of a tale. It is the famous
DIALOGUE OF Y[=A]JÑAVALKYA AND M[=A]ITREY[=I].[25]
Y[=a]jñavalkya had two wives, M[=a]itrey[=i] and K[=a]ty[=a]yani. Now M[=a]itrey[=i] was versed in holy knowledge (brahma), but K[=a]ty[=a]yani had only such knowledge as women have. But when Y[=a]jñavalkya was about to go away into the forest (to become a hermit), he said: 'M[=a]itrey[=i], I am going away from this place. Behold, I will make a settlement between thee and that K[=a]ty[=a]yani.' Then said M[=a]itrey[=i]: 'Lord, if this whole earth filled with wealth were mine, how then? should I be immortal by reason of this wealth?' 'Nay,' said Y[=a]jñavalkya. 'Even as is the life of the rich would be thy life; by reason of wealth one has no hope of immortality.' Then said M[=a]itrey[=i]: 'With what I cannot be immortal, what can I do with that? whatever my Lord knows even that tell me.' And Y[=a]jñavalkya said: 'Dear to me thou art, indeed, and fondly speakest. Therefore I will explain to thee and do thou regard me as I explain.' And he said: 'Not for the husband's sake is a husband dear, but for the ego's sake is the husband dear. Not for the wife's sake is a wife dear; but for the ego's sake is a wife dear; not for the son's sake are sons dear, but for the ego's sake are sons dear; not for wealth's sake is wealth dear, but for the ego's sake is wealth dear; not for the sake of the Brahman caste is the Brahman caste dear, but for the sake of the ego is the Brahman caste dear; not for the sake of the Warrior caste is the Warrior caste dear, but for love of the ego is the Warrior caste dear; not for the sake of the worlds are worlds dear, but for the sake of the ego are worlds dear; not for the sake of gods are gods dear, but for the ego's sake are gods dear; not for the sake of bh[=u]ts (spirits) are bh[=u]ts dear, but for the ego's sake are bhuts dear; not for the sake of anything is anything dear, but for love of one's self (ego) is anything (everything) dear; the ego (self) must be seen, heard, apprehended, regarded, M[=a]itrey[=i], for with the seeing, hearing, apprehending, and regarding of the ego the All is known…. Even as smoke pours out of a fire lighted with damp kindling wood, even so out of the Great Being is blown out all that which is, Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, S[=a]ma Veda, Atharva (Angiras) Veda, Stories, Tales, Sciences, Upanishads, food, drink, sacrifices; all creatures that exist are blown (breathed) out of this one (Great Spirit) alone. As in the ocean all the waters have their meeting-place; as the skin is the meeting-place of all touches; the tongue, of all tastes; the nose, of all smells; the mind, of all precepts; the heart, of all knowledges; … as salt cast into water is dissolved so that one cannot seize it, but wherever one tastes it is salty, so this Great Being, endless, limitless, is a mass of knowledge. It arises out of the elements and then disappears in them. After death there is no more consciousness.[26] I have spoken.' Thus said Y[=a]jñavalkya. Then said M[=a]itrey[=i]: 'Truly my Lord has bewildered me in saying that after death there is no more consciousness.' And Y[=a]jñavalkya said: 'I say nothing bewildering, but what suffices for understanding. For where there is as it were duality (dv[=a]itam), there one sees, smells, hears, addresses, notices, knows another; but when all the universe has become mere ego, with what should one smell, see, hear, address, notice, know any one (else)? How can one know him through whom he knows this all, how can he know the knower (as something different)? The ego is to be described by negations alone, the incomprehensible, imperishable, unattached, unfettered; the ego neither suffers nor fails. Thus, M[=a]itrey[=i], hast thou been instructed. So much for immortality.' And having spoken thus Y[=a]jñavalkya went away (into the forest).
Returning to the Upanishad, of which an outline was given in the beginning of this chapter, one finds a state of things which, in general, may be said to be characteristic of the whole Upanishad period. The same vague views in regard to cosmogony and eschatology obtain in all save the outspoken sectarian tracts, and the same uncertainty in regard to man's future fate prevails in this whole cycle.[27] A few extracts will show this. According to the Ch[=a]ndogya (4. 17. 1), a personal creator, the old Father-god of the Br[=a]hmanas, Praj[=a]pati, made the elements proceed from the worlds he had 'brooded' over (or had done penance over, abhyatapat). In 3. 19. 1, not-being was first; this became being (with the mundane egg, etc.). In sharp contradiction (6. 2. 1): 'being was the first thing, it willed,' etc., a conscious divinity, as is seen in ib. 3. 2, where it is a 'deity,' producing elements as 'deities' (ib. 8. 6) which it enters 'with the living [=a]tm[=a],' and so develops names and forms (so T[=a]itt. 2. 7). The latter is the prevailing view of the Upanishad. In 1. 7. 5 ff. the [=a]tm[=a] is the same with the universal [=a]tm[=a]; in 3. 12. 7, the brahma is the same with ether without and within, unchanging; in 3. 13. 7, the 'light above heaven' is identical with the light in man; in 3. 14. 1, all is brahma (neuter), and this is an intelligent universal spirit. Like the ether is the [=a]tm[=a] in the heart, this is brahma (ib. 2 ff.); in 4. 3. air and breath are the two ends (so in the argument above, these are immortal as distinguished from all else); in 4. 10. 5 yad v[=a]v[=a] ka[.m] tad eva kham (brahma is ether); in 4. 15. 1, the ego is brahma; in 5. 18. 1 the universal ego is identified with the particular ego ([=a]tm[=a]); in 6. 8 the ego is the True, with which one unites in dreamless sleep; in 6. 15. 1, into par[=a] devat[=a] or 'highest divinity' enters man's spirit, like salt in water (ib. 13). In 7. 15-26, a view but half correct is stated to be that 'breath' is all, but it is better to know that yo bh[=u]m[=a] tad am[r.]tam, the immortal (all) is infinity, which rests in its own greatness, with a corrective 'but perhaps it doesn't' (yadi v[=a] na). This infinity is ego and [=a]tm[=a].[28]
What is the reward for knowing this? One obtains worlds, unchanging happiness, brahma; or, with some circumnavigation, one goes to the moon, and eventually reaches brahma or obtains the worlds of the blessed (5. 10. 10). The round of existence, sams[=a]ra, is indicated at 6. 16, and expressly stated in 5. 10. 7 (insects have here a third path). Immortality is forcibly claimed: 'The living one dies not' (6. 11. 3). He who knows the sections 7. 15 to 26 becomes [=a]tm[=a]nanda and "lord of all worlds"; whereas an incorrect view gives perishable worlds. In one Upanishad there is a verse (Çvet. 4. 5) which would indicate a formal duality like that of the S[=a]nkhyas;[29] but in general one may say that the Upanishads are simply pantheistic, only the absorption into a world-soul is as yet scarcely formulated. On the other hand, some of the older Upanishads show traces of an atheistic and materialistic (asad) philosophy, which is swallowed up in the growing inclination to personify the creative principle, and ultimately is lost in the erection of a personal Lord, as in the latest Upanishads. This tendency to personify, with the increase of special sectarian gods, will lead again, after centuries, to the rehabilitation of a triad of gods, the trim[=u]rti, where unite Vishnu, Çiva, and, with these, who are more powerful, Brahm[=a], the Praj[=a]pati of the Veda, as the All-god of purely pantheistic systems. In the purer, older form recorded above, the purusha (Person) is sprung from the [=a]tm[=a]. There is no distinction between matter and spirit. Conscious being (sat) wills, and so produces all. Or [=a]tm[=a] comes first; and this is conscious sat and the cause of the worlds; which [=a]tm[=a] eventually becomes the Lord. The [=a]tm[=a] in man, owing to his environment, cannot see whole, and needs the Yoga discipline of asceticism to enable him to do so. But he is the same ego which is the All.
The relation between the absolute and the ego is through will. "This (neuter) brahma willed, 'May I be many,' and created" (Ch[=a]nd., above). Sometimes the impersonal, and sometimes the personal "spirit willed" (T[=a]iit. 2. 6). And when it is said, in Brihad [=A]ran. 1. 4. 1, that "In the beginning ego, spirit, [=a]tm[=a], alone existed," one finds this spirit (self) to be a form of brahma (ib. 10-11). Personified in a sectarian sense, this spirit becomes the divinity Rudra Çiva, the Blessed One (Çvet[=a]çvatara, 3. 5. 11).[30]
In short, the teachers of the Upanishads not only do not declare clearly what they believed in regard to cosmogonic and eschatological matters, but many of them probably did not know clearly what they believed. Their great discovery was that man's spirit was not particular and mortal, but part of the immortal universal. Whether this universal was a being alive and a personal [=a]tm[=a], or whether this personal being was but a transient form of impersonal, imperishable being;[31] and whether the union with being, brahma, would result in a survival of individual consciousness,—these are evidently points they were not agreed upon, and, in all probability, no one of the sages was certain in regard to them. Crass identifications of the vital principle with breath, as one with ether, which is twice emphasized as one of the two immortal things, were provisionally accepted. Then breath and immortal spirit were made one. Matter had energy from the beginning, brahma; or was chaos, asat, without being. But when asat becomes sat, that sat becomes brahma, energized being, and to asat there is no return. In eschatology the real (spirit, or self) part of man (ego) either rejoices forever as a conscious part of the conscious world-self, or exists immortal in brahma—imperishable being, conceived as more or less conscious.[32]
The teachers recognize the limitations of understanding: "The gods are in Indra, Indra is in the Father-god, the Father-god (the Spirit) is in brahma"—"But in what is brahma?" And the answer is, "Ask not too much" (Brihad. [=A]ran. Up. 3. 6).
These problems will be those of the future formal philosophy. Even the Upanishads do not furnish a philosophy altogether new. Their doctrine of karma their identification of particular ego and universal ego, is not original. The 'breaths,' the 'nine doors,' the 'three qualities,' the purusha as identical with ego, are older even than the Br[=a]hmanas (Scherman, loc. cit. p. 62).
It is not a new philosophy, it is a new religion that the Upanishads offer.[33] This is no religion of rites and ceremonies, although the cult is retained as helpful in disciplining and teaching; it is a religion for sorrowing humanity. It is a religion that comforts the afflicted, and gives to the soul 'that peace which the world cannot give.' In the sectarian Upanishads this bliss of religion is ever present. "Through knowing Him who is more subtile than subtile, who is creator of everything, who has many forms, who embraces everything, the Blessed Lord—one attains to peace without end" (Çvet. 4. 14-15). These teachers, who enjoin the highest morality ('self-restraint, generosity, and mercy' are God's commandments in Brihad [=A]ran. 5. 2) refuse to be satisfied with virtue's reward, and, being able to obtain heaven, 'seek for something beyond.' And this they do not from mere pessimism, but from a conviction that they will find a joy greater than that of heaven, and more enduring, in that world where is "the light beyond the darkness" (Çvet. 3. 8); "where shines neither sun, moon, stars, lightning, nor fire, but all shines after Him that shines alone, and through His light the universe is lighted" (Mund. 2. 2. 10). This, moreover, is not a future joy. It is one that frees from perturbation in this life, and gives relief from sorrow. In the Ch[=a]ndogya (7. 1. 3) a man in grief comes seeking this new knowledge of the universal Spirit; "For," says he, "I have heard it said that he who knows the Spirit passes beyond grief." So in the [=I]ç[=a], though this is a late sectarian work, it is asked, "What sorrow can there be for him to whom Spirit alone has become all things?' (7). Again, "He that knows the joy of brahma, whence speech with mind turns away without apprehending it, fears not" (T[=a]itt. 2. 4); for "fear comes only from a second" (Brihad [=A]ran. Up. 1. 4. 2), and when one recognizes that all is one he no longer fears death (ib. 4. 4. 15).