The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

by Swami Krishnananda

Chapter III

Second Brahmana: Man in Bondage and His Future at Death

1. atha hainaṁ jāratkārava ārtabhāgaḥ papraccha:. yājñavalkya iti hovāca, kati grahāḥ katy atigrahā iti. aṣṭau grahāḥ aṣṭāv atigrahā iti. ye te'ṣṭau grahāḥ aṣṭāv atigrahāḥ, katame ta iti.

Another sage now got up. "O Yājñavalkya, I have also got questions because you have carried away my cows." Atha hainaṁ jāratkārava ārtabhāgaḥ papraccha: Another great sage was sitting there who was a descendant of Jaratkaru and his name was Ārthabhāga. Ārthabhāga puts a question: "Yājñavalkya! I put you this question." Yājñavalkyaiti hovāca, kati grahāḥ katy atigrahā iti: "How many Grahas are there, how many Atigrahas are there?" Even the words 'Graha' and 'Atigraha' are unintelligible; we cannot make out their meaning. What do you mean by 'Graha' and 'Atigraha'? He simply puts a question: "You tell us how many Grahas are there, how many Atigrahas are there?" Yājñavalkya is not in any way deterred by these fantastic questions. He knows the answers to all these. Aṣṭau grahāḥ aṣṭāv atigrahā iti: "There are eight Grahas and eight Atigrahas," was the answer of Yājñavalkya. Ye te'ṣṭau grahāḥ aṣṭāv atigrahāḥ, katame ta iti: "Yājñavalkya! Tell me, exactly what are these eight Grahas that you are speaking of and what are the eight Atigrahas?"

Here, in this section of the Upaniṣhad, we are dealing with a very important subject in the answer Yājñavalkya gives to Ārthabhāga, the questioner. It is important from the point of view of Yoga practice and spiritual meditation. It is not merely a fantastic question. It is a highly philosophical question and of great spiritual import from the point of view of actual practice. Graha means the senses and Atigraha is the object of sense. It is called Graha because it grasps the object. Anything that grasps is called the Graha. In Sanskrit, the root Grah signifies the action of grasping, grabbing, holding, controlling etc. As the senses grasp objects, catch hold of them and make them their own, as they hold tightly upon the object of sense, the senses are called the Grahas. But the objects are called Atigrahas. They are greater graspers than the grasper, the sense itself. Why? If the sense can grasp the object, the object also can grasp the sense. They are like two fighters in a duel. One is catching hold of the other. 'A' does not leave 'B'; 'B'  does not leave 'A'. The senses will not leave the objects and the object also will not leave the senses. The more the sense grasps the object, the more does the object stir the sense. So there is a mutual action and reaction between the senses and the objects. The senses flare up more and more, irritated, angered and strengthened by their catching hold of the object. The strength of the sense increases when it catches hold of the object, and the object, inasmuch as it is capable of energising the sense further and further on account of its coming in contact with it is called a greater grasper. It grasps sense itself. So, the 'Graha' is the sense, the organ of action and sensation; and the object thereof is the 'Atigraha'. "How many are there?" "Eight are there," says Yājñavalkya.

2. prāṇo vai grahāḥ, so'pānenātigrāheṇa gṛhītaḥ, apānena hi gandhān jighrati.

Prāṇovai grahāḥ: The Prāṇa grasps. So'pānenātigrāheṇagṛhītaḥ, apānena higandhān jighrati: The Prāṇa here does not mean merely the process of breathing. It is that vital principle or activity inside, by which smell is made possible by the nostrils. The Prāṇa functions in an active manner through the nostrils and compels the nose to ask for more and more of odour as it's own diet, or food. And the Apāna, which is another function of the vital breath, is the source of the variety of smell which we have in the outer world. It acts like the feelers, as it were, for the varieties of odours in the external world. And so the Prāṇa and the Apāna, jointly, can be regarded as the Graha and the Atigraha. Prāṇa acts upon Apāna; Apāna acts upon Prāṇa. And it is on account of this mutual action and reaction of Prāṇa and Apāna that we are able to smell and want more and more of smell.

3. vāg vai grahāḥ, sa nāmnātigrāheṇa gṛihītaḥ, gṛhītaḥ, vācā hi nāmāny abhivadati.

Vāg vai grahāḥ: Speech is another Graha. It is also a very simple principle but very active in its modus operandi in the set of objects—vāg vai grahāḥ: sa nāmnātigrāheṇa gṛihītaḥ, gṛhītaḥ, vācā hi nāmāny abhivadati: Speech is the repository of all language, all words, all designation, definition, meaning, etc. So, the principle of speech is the Graha which catches hold of all meaning through language, and language is that which stirs the speech by correlative action. So speech and the words that we utter through speech, which means to say, everything that we speak, every meaning that we convey through any type of language spoken by word of mouth, may be regarded as Atigraha, or the counterpart of the Graha which is speech. And likewise, all other senses are Grahas, and they have their own objects or their Atigrahas which stir them into action.

4. jihvā vai grahaḥ, sa rasenātigrāheṇa gṛhītaḥ, jīhvayā hi rasān vijānāti.

Jihvā vai grahaḥ, sarasenātigrāheṇa gṛhītaḥ: The palate, the tongue which is the instrument of taste, is a Graha. It catches hold of all taste; and taste is itself an Atigraha because the activity of the palate is increased by the presence of a variety of taste. It is caught hold of by the taste. If the tongue asks for taste, the presence of taste increases the vitality and energy of the palate, so that it gets caught more and more—jīhvayā hi rasān vijānāti—because by the palate it is that we are able to taste all delicious things in the world.

5. cakṣur vai grahaḥ, sa rūpeṇātigrāheṇa gṛhītaḥ, cakṣuṣā hi rūpāṇi paśyati.

Cakṣur vai grahaḥ: The eye also is a Graha which catches hold of colours and forms. Sa rūpeṇātigrāheṇa gṛhītaḥ: All forms have an impact upon the eye so that the eye asks for more and more perception of colours and forms. And so the eyes are never satisfied with perception. Cakṣuṣā hi rūpāṇi paśyati: It is by the eyes that we perceive forms, and so the eyes and the forms connected with the eyes are the Graha and the Atigraha.

6. śrotraṁ vai grahaḥ, sa śabdenātigrāheṇa gṛhītaḥ, śroteṇa hi śabdān śṛṇoti.

The ears are the Graha. They catch hold of the sounds and the sounds stir up the activity of the ears, so that they like to hear more and more variety of sound. Because of this fact the ears wish to hear sounds, and in turn sounds stimulate the activity of the ears. They act as Graha and Atigraha.

7. mano vai grahaḥ, sa kāmenātigrāheṇa gṛhītaḥ, manasā hi kāmān kāmayate.

The mind is the Graha because it catches hold of all objects of desire, and every fulfilment of desire stirs up the activity of the mind more and more. So, the mind and the object of desire act as Graha and Atigraha.

8. hastau vai grahaḥ, sa karmaṇātigrāheṇa gṛhītaḥ, hastābhyāṁ hi karma karoti.

Hastau vai grahaḥ: The hand is also a Graha. It catches hold of things. Sa karmanatigrahena grihitah: It is fond of action. It does something or the other. It does not keep quiet. So, the urge to act, or to perform Karma or work, is the Atigraha, the counterpart of this very urge itself which is communicated through the hands that are the instruments of action. So these are the Graha.

9. tvag vai grahaḥ, sa sparśenātigrāheṇa gṛhītaḥ, tvacā hi sparśān vedayate: ity ete'ṣṭau grahāḥ, aṣṭāv atigrahāḥ.

Tvag vai grahaḥ: The skin also is a Graha. It asks for soft touches, etc. Sa sparśenātigrāheṇa gṛhītaḥ: All touches stimulate the skin and the skin asks for touches. Tvacā hi sparśān vedayate: ity ete'ṣṭau grahāḥ, aṣṭāv atigrahāḥ: These are the eight forms of perceptional activity, cognitional activity, the activity of the senses, and the eight kinds of effect that their objects correspondingly have upon them.

10. yājñavalkya iti hovāca, yad idaṁ sarvam mṛtyor annam, kā svit sā devatā, yasyā mṛtyur annam iti: agnir vai mṛtyuḥ, so' pām annam, apa punar mṛtyuṁ jayati.

Yājñavalkya iti hovāca, yad idaṁ sarvam mṛtyor annam, kā svit sā devatā: Yājñavalkya! This activity of the senses is, veritably, death for them. It is very well known. It is not a good thing for the senses to work in this manner, because they fight with each other. The senses fight with their objects and the objects fight with the senses. They finally kill each other, one day or the other. Everything is destructible; everything is subject to death. Nothing can be free from the jaws of death. Now, ārthabhāga asked Yājñavalkya: "Inasmuch as everything here is a 'food' for death which is the Devata, for whom death itself the food?" There is no escape from death. Death swallows everybody as if it is food. But is there a death of death? Is there anything of which death itself is the food? Can you tell me who is death to death itself? What is death? Which Devata, which deity, which god can eat death in the same way as death eats everything, so to say? Sarvam mṛtyor annam, kā svit sā devatā, yasyā mṛtyur annam iti: agnir vai mṛtyuḥ, so' pām annam, apa punar mṛtyuṁ jayati: Yājñavalkya says: "My dear friend! You know that there is a death for everything, and one thing can be swallowed by another thing. Fire is an eater of everybody. It can burn and swallow and destroy anything. But fire can be eaten up by water. If you pour a particular quantity of water, fire gets extinguished. So, in the same way as water can be regarded as an eater of death in the form of fire which is the eater of other things, there is an eater of that eater too. The meaning implied herein is that the eater of death is the Supreme Being—mṛityuryasyā upase-canam." We are told this in the Katha Upaniṣhad. The Supreme Being is the swallower of death. That means to say, one cannot overcome death unless one resorts to the Supreme Being. Not before that can you escape transmigration. There cannot be freedom from birth and death, there cannot be therefore freedom from the consequent sorrow of life, until and unless the great Reality is realised. So, who is the death of death? Who is the eater of death? The Supreme Being, the Eternal, the Absolute, He is the eater of death, and no one else can eat death.

11. yājñavalkya, iti hovāca, yatrāyam puruṣo mriyate, ud asmāt prāṇāḥ krāmanty āho neti. na iti hovāca yājñavalkyaḥ, atraiva samavanīyante, sa ucchvayati, ādhmāyati, ādmnāto mṛtaḥ śete.

Yājñavalkya, iti hovāca, yatrāyam puruṣo mriyate, ud asmāt prāṇāḥ krāmanty: “Well; you say there is an eater of death, by resort to whom death ceases, as it were, which means to say there is freedom and liberation, emancipation. That is the meaning of freedom from death which one attains by resort to the eternal Reality. What happens to the Prāṇas of this individual when he attains liberation by freedom from the clutches of the senses and their corresponding objects, the Grahas and the Atigrahas? Do the Prāṇas of a realised soul depart from the body?” Generally, when a person dies, the Prāṇas depart from the body. They leave through the nose, head or some other point. Some passage is  open and  the Prāṇ a goes out. And, along with the Prāṇa, the Jīva flies. This is the belief. The soul takes rebirth by means of the aperture created by the Prāṇa. So the Prāṇa goes. The Jīva leaves the body and enters into some other realm. But what happens to the Prāṇa of the individual who has conquered the onslaught of the Grahas and the Atigrahas by resort to that which eats up death itself? Does the Prāṇa of that person depart from the body?—ud asmāt prānāh krāmanty āho neti. na iti hovāca yājñavalkyaḥ: “No; no,” says Yājñavalkya. “They do not depart from the body. In the case of the individual who has realised the Eternal Being, the Prāṇas do not leave the body by any aperture. They do not find an avenue to go out. There is no going out of the Prāṇa in the case of a realised soul. There is no out or in for that person.” “What happens then?” Yājñavalkya, atraiva samavanīyante: “They merge there itself.” Inasmuch as the aim and purpose of the realised soul is at the very place where he or she is, there is no need of running to another place to gain what one needs. If what you need is just under your nose, why should you move to a shop or a bazaar? Why do you go to any place if that which you require from that place is just here near you? That which one aims at in realisation is just at the spot where one is, and therefore the Prāṇa does not move out. Why does the Prāṇa in the case of an ordinary person depart? Because of the desires of the individual to fulfil certain unfulfilled ones, which can be fulfilled only under conditions different from the one in which the body was living previously. And inasmuch as the conditions required to fulfil unfulfilled desires are different from the ones in which one was earlier, there is a necessity to depart from the body. Just as you have to go to Delhi or some place because you want something else from that place which you cannot get here; but if everything is here itself, you need not move from this place. But he, the realised soul, has found everything in the very place where he is, and therefore the Prāṇas dissolve like a bubble in the ocean there itself—atraiva samavanīyante, sa ucchvayati, ādhmāyati, ādhmāto mṛitaḥ śete: Only the body swells, deteriorates and becomes one with the physical element, the earth, but the Prāṇa does not go, the Jīva does not depart, there is no movement through the planes of existence. There is no rebirth for that individual because he has attained liberation, then   and   there.   This   is   called   Sadyo-Mukti,   immediateliberation,  very  difficult  to  attain.  Only Masters  can  attain such a state.

12. yājñavalkya, iti hovāca, yatrāyam puruṣo mriyate, kim enaṁ na jahātīti: nāma iti, anantaṁ vai nāma, anantā viśve-devāḥ, anantam eva sa tena lokaṁ jayati.

Yājñavalkya, iti hovāca, yatrāyam puruṣo mriyate, kim enaṁ na jahātīti: “When you say that the Prāṇas do not depart, they merge there itself, dissolve themselves at the very spot they are, does anything remain of that person or does everything go? Is everything exhausted or extinguished of that personality, or do you think something remains of that individual even after the attainment of the liberation, freedom from Graha and Atigraha?” Kim enaṁ na jahātīti. Nama iti: “Nothing remains there except his own name.” We say Govinda attained liberation, meaning someone of that name. Like that his name will be remembered always. So- and-so has attained liberation; he has gone to Brahma-loka; he has attained Mukti. We speak of him even after he has gone. Vasishta, Valmiki, Suka, and other ancient sages, we speak of them even now. They may be there or may not be there. They might have merged themselves in the Absolute, it does not matter. But their names remain. Nothing remains of them; that is what he means, except the name only—nāma iti, anantaṁ vai nāma: “The renown is the only thing that remains, and the renown is Ananta.” It is sung, everywhere it is spoken of, because of the glory of that name. Anantā viśve- devāḥ: “All gods he has become and he becomes as glorious and famous and renowned as all gods themselves. Anantam eva sa tena lokaṁ jayati: “He has attained to the infinite worlds.” What else can remain in his personality?

13. yājñavalkya, iti hovāca, yatrāsya puruṣasya mṛtasyāgniṁ vāg apyeti, vātam prāṇaḥ, cakṣur ādityam, manas candram, diśaḥ śrotram, pṛthivīm śarīram, ākāśam ātmā, oṣadhīr lomāni, vanaspatīn keśāḥ, apsu lohitaṁ ca retaś ca nidhīyate,  kvāyaṁ  tadā  puruṣo  bhavatīti.  āhara,  somya,hastam, ārtabhāga; āvām evaitasya vediṣyāvaḥ, na nāv etat sajana iti. tau hotkramya, mantrayāṁ cakrāte: tau ha yad ῡcatuḥ, karma haiva tad ῡcatuḥ, atha yat praśaśaṁsatuḥ karma haiva tat praśaśaṁsatuḥ: puṇyo vai puṇyena karmaṇā bhavati, pāpaḥ pāpeneti. tato ha jāratkārava ārtabhāga upararāma.

Yājñavalkya, iti hovāca, yatrāsya puruṣasya mṛtasyāgniṁ vāg apyeti: Now, what happens to the individual at the time of liberation? Some mysterious processes take place. This individuality is a conglomeration of certain particulars, certain elements taken from the cosmos. This body is made up of certain building bricks got from somewhere else. The body is not a compact indivisible single entity. It is a composite substance like a building. What is the building made of? You have got many things in the building. There are bricks; there is mortar; there are iron rods; there are nails; there are wooden rafters and many other things. From where have you got all these things? They have come from various sources. You have got bricks from brick kilns; iron from iron merchants; and mortar from cement shop, and so on and so forth. Likewise, this body of the individual, this individuality, has been constituted of various elements. The sense-organs also are certain principles which have been taken partly by way of abstraction from the cosmic principles. Then what happens? When the body dies the building collapses, and the material goes back to the source from where it has come. The effect returns to the cause. The body will not remain as an isolated entity. All the constituents of the body will be returned to the sources from where they were brought for the particular purpose of embodiment.

“Yājñavalkya! I put you a question.” Yatrāsya puruṣasya mṛtasyāgniṁ vāg apyeti: “The principle of speech goes back to the fire, because it came from fire. Vātam prāṇaḥ: Prāṇa goes to the cosmic wind. Cakṣur ādityam: The principle of perception, the eye, will go back to the sun who is the presiding deity thereof. Manas candram: The mind will go to the moon. Diśaḥ śrotram: The ears will go back to the quarters, the Digdevatās. Pṛthivīm śarīram: This body, the physical parts of the body will go back to the earth from where they have come. Ākāśam ātmā: The self will go into the ether. Oṣadhīr lomāni: The hairs of the body will go back to the vegetable kingdom. Vanaspatīn keśāḥ: The hair from the head will go back to the trees. Apsu lohitaṁ ca retaś ca nidhīyate: The vital energy and the blood will go back to the waters. Kvāyaṁ tadā puruṣo bhavatīti: If all the constituents go like this to their respective places, where does the individual remain?” What becomes the cause of the rebirth of an individual, in case at the time of death the principal elements go back to their sources? Except in the case where the individual has attained liberation, there is always  rebirth. But, you know that the body cannot take rebirth. It goes to the earth. It has no life. It dissolves into the material constituent of which it is a part. So the thing that takes rebirth is not the body. Then what is it that takes birth? Something is there, a peculiar thing which becomes the reason for rebirth. It is not something visible. “Yājñavalkya! I ask you; what is it that really takes birth? Which part of the individual is responsible for it?” Āhara, somya, hastam, ārtabhāga: Yājñavalkya says: “I will not answer this question in public. It is a secret. You come with me to a corner. I shall speak to you secretly and tell you what it is. Why should I have it loudly proclaimed?” He got hold of the hand of the questioner and took him to a corner. “I tell you what it is. Let not others hear it. Āvām evaitasya vediṣyāvaḥ: Only we two know; nobody else will know. Na nāv etat sajana iti: The public may not know it. It is useless to talk about it in public because it is a controversial element. Nobody will understand what I say, if I proclaim it publicly in the audience. Inasmuch as it is not going to be intelligible to the people, its meaning is not going to be clear, and it is only going to confuse them and confound them. I will tell you only, in your ear. Let not others hear it.” Tau hotkramya, mantrayāṁ cakrāte: They went out in a corner and discussed between themselves as to the possibility of various alternatives which may be responsible for the rebirth of an individual. Is it God who is responsible for the rebirth? Some say, God is the cause of rebirth. He punishes. Some say, time is the cause of rebirth. Some say, by accident rebirth takes place. Some say, desire is the cause of rebirth. Some say, simple actions are the cause of rebirth. Oh, various theories! Some say, there is no rebirth for anyone at all because the body gets dissolved in the earth and the body is the only thing that is there. When body goes, everything goes. So many alternatives have been offered by various schools of thought, right from the materialists onwards. What is the point, really? The Upaniṣhad tells us the outcome of their discussion. How they discussed and what they argued about and how they came to the conclusion—all that is not mentioned here. Only the conclusion is mentioned. Karma haiva tad ῡcatuḥ: They came to the conclusion that it is Karma that is the cause of rebirth.

It is very right that Yājñavalkya did not loudly proclaim it, because it is a word whose meaning is not clear. Nobody knows what it means. You have heard this word many times, but its meaning cannot be easily understood. Karma is action. Literally, the dictionary meaning is action. Action causes rebirth, and it is unintelligible because its meaning here is something different from what the dictionary meaning of it is. Karma is action, but it is not any and every kind of action that can be regarded as the cause of rebirth. It is a particular type of attitude of the total individual that can be regarded as action. If I lift this watch and put it back, it is an action. It is very unreasonable to say that this simple act can be the cause of my rebirth, though it is an action. So, it is not every action that is the cause of rebirth. It is a peculiar type of action. But, even the word ‘action’ is something unintelligible. You cannot understand what action means. If you walk, it is an action. If you eat, it is an action. If you speak, it is an action. If you think, also it is an action. Does it mean that whatever you do becomes the cause of rebirth? If you walk, you will be reborn? If you eat, you will be reborn? If you think, you will be reborn? Then, you are only to be reborn again and again. There is no other escape from the process of rebirth if everything that you do is a cause of rebirth. This is very difficult to understand. It is not that every little bit of movement of your body or every function of the mind is a cause of rebirth. No, it is a particular attitude generated by a preponderating emphasis laid by the whole personality that may be said to be the cause of rebirth. Well, the word ‘desire’ is a very appropriate term. But even the word ‘desire’ is difficult to understand. It is not every type of want that causes rebirth. It is a very serious urge of the whole psychophysical personality that can be regarded as the seed of rebirth. We shall not discuss this subject just now in detail. We shall pass on to the actual context of the discussion, and go into the details of this subject when we come to it later on.

So, what I mean to say is that inasmuch as the word ‘Karma’ is very unintelligible and you cannot understand how Karmas can cause rebirth, Yājñavalkya did not want to speak loudly about it, and privately said, this is the point, nothing else. Karma haiva tad ῡcatuḥ, atha yat praśaśaṁsatuḥ karma haiva tat praśaśaṁsatuḥ: puṇyo vai puṇyena karmaṇā bhavati, pāpaḥ pāpeneti. tato ha jāratkārava ārtabhāga upararāma: “The kind of ‘action’ that you perform becomes the cause of a kind of life that you are going to enter into in the next birth.” Now Ārthabhāga, descendant of Jāratkāru, kept quiet. His questions had been answered.