1

Knowledge of the Self in the Upanishads How is it attained, and what does it mean?
Max Cooper, University of Ottawa. Oct. 6, 2010

The Upanishads often characterize the question regarding knowledge of the self (atman)
as one that even the most learned teachers find difficult to answer. We find, in the Katha
Upanishad, Yama to be perturbed when Naciketas asks after the souls destiny after death:
[c]hoose a different boon, Naciketas. Do not, do not insist: release me from this (p 275).
Likewise, Sakayanya of the Maitri Upanishad responds to the kings request for a teaching on
the self that [t]his boon was of old difficult to achieve: do not ask the question, Aiksvaka; he
implores him to [c]hoose other desires (351).
Despite these injunctions from a sage and the lord of death, our desire here is indeed to
pose the question: how does one, according to these texts, arrive at a knowledge of the self?
Examination of the contexts of the passages above suggests a connection to ascetic discipline.
King Brhadratha had embark[ed] on the highest asceticism, wherein he stood with arms raised
for a thousand days; he had attained dispassion (351). Likewise, Naciketas, in demanding his
third boon, steadfastly refuses the worldly desires Yama tries to offer him in its place:
Ephemeral things, Ender!... A human being cannot be satisfied by wealth (276). The
Brhadaranyaka Upanishad describes the self as being sought through asceticism, through
fasting ... Desiring it as their world, renouncers wander. Knowing it, the ancients did not desire
offspring (75). This lack of desire for offspring jars strongly against traditional Vedic societys
emphasis on the importance of sons (see, e.g., Roebuck xxi). The Maitri puts the point even more
strongly: It has been said also: there is not study in the knowledge of self, or purification from
actions, for one without asceticism (359). We will see, however, that ascetic practice is

2
certainly not a sufficient condition for attaining knowledge of the self, and even that it is very
likely not a necessary condition.
Another important factor the Upanishads address regarding self-realization is the
influence of a teacher. The title Upanishad is derived from to sit down close to; this
traditionally has been seen as referring to a session of teaching, with the student sitting close to
the teacher (Roebuck xxxvii n.1), and indeed, both of our two opening encounters above are
dialogues between a teacher and student. Yama tells Naciketas that [t]here is no way to [this
knowledge] without anothers teaching (278). The reliance on a teacher is ever-present, from
Brhadrathas waiting one-thousand days for Sakayanya (351), to Maitreyis desire for her
husband to teach her what he knows (34), to Indras 101 year period of discipleship under
Prajapati (201-202).
Study of the Vedas is another important condition held to be necessary for attaining this
kind of knowledge. The Brhadaranyaka Upanishad describes the procedure of seeking the self
as being undertaken through study of the Vedas, through sacrifice (75). This is evidence of the
Upanishads maintained continuity with the Vedic tradition, in contrast with the heterodox orders
of Jainism and Buddhism. The Maitri Upanishad asserts that the remedy for the elemental self
involves study of the knowledge of the Veda, practicing ones own dharma, and walking
according to ones own stages of life (359). The invoking of the concept of dharma and the
ashramas, or stages of life, also speak to an adherence to Vedic orthodoxy: Buddhism and
Jainism had rejected the notions of individual dharma as well as the four ashramas. The Maitri
text in particular takes aim at Buddhism, criticizing the juggleries of the non-self doctrine
(386; cf. Roebuck 480 n. 19), and declaring that a Brahmana should not study what is not
Vedic (387).

3
We must also qualify our earlier remarks on asceticism: as Roebuck has pointed out,
some of the Upanishads greatest figures attained knowledge of the self while living as
householders: Janaka and Ajatasatru were very wealthy royal sages; Yajnavalkyas teachings
come while he is living with his two wives, and winning wealth in cattle sufficient to have made
him a millionaire in modern terms (xxiv). The Maitri Upanishad even seems to criticize certain
ascetic practices: those who falsely wear saffron robes and earrings, or carry skulls and certain
wearers of matted locks are associated with the net of delusion (385) (this however seems
not to be a criticism of ascetic practice per se, but specifically of those who practice this in a way
destructive of the Vedas (see 386)).
Finally, we should note that knowledge of the self is said not to be reachable through
discursive methods. Yama tells his disciple that it cannot be grasped by reasoning; subtler
than the subtle, it is not to be reasoned out (278). Yajnavalkya prescribes that one should not
think on many words, / For that is mere weariness of speech (75). The Maitri Upanishad
contrasts knowledge of the self with normal learning of the mind: this kind of knowledge occurs
only when [o]ne reaches a state without mind (360); everything besides this is merely
multiplication of books (360).
Of what then does this highly esoteric knowledge of the self consist? The Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad relates a sort of creation myth wherein only the primordial atman exists in the
beginning; after creating from itself all things, it is still cognizant that I am creation, for I
created all this; Even today, we are told, whoever knows I am brahman becomes all this
(19-21). Yajnavalkya makes clear to his questioners, who ask him to reveal the brahman that is
manifest, not hidden, that is the self within everything, that [i]t is your self that is within
everything (46 ff.). This self goes beyond hunger and thirst, grief, delusion, old age and death

4
(46). At this point we might object what is said to be our self here does not correspond with our
ordinary conception of our self; we certainly experience hunger, thirst, grief, and the like. We
might then consult Yajnavalkyas later words: [y]ou cannot see the seer of seeing; you cannot
hear the hearer of hearing; you cannot think of the thinker of thinking; you cannot know the
knower of knowing. This is your self that is within everything (46). This self, then, is
unavailable to the mind and senses because it is, in a sense, the subject who possesses the sensual
and cognitive capacities. The Kena Upanishad likewise declares, What one does not think of by
the mind / By which, they say, the mind is thought of / Know that as brahman (263).
This helps us to understand what precisely these texts mean by self-realization: it does
not relate merely to ones personality, likes, dislikes, and so on (this is the same insight which
leads the dissatisfied Indra back to Prajapati: knowledge of the self is not knowledge of what is
contained in our body, regardless of how smartly dressed (199-200)) rather, this is a much
larger and more significant self: Whoever has found and woken up the self / / He is the AllCreator, for he is the maker of everything: / His is the world indeed, he is the world (74). One
who has found the self becomes the entire world. The self and brahman are not only the
subjective witnesses to our experiences, nor the smartly dressed body; they are in fact both of
these things and more. In the words of Yajnavalkyas interlocutors, brahman is both manifest,
not hidden and the self within everything (46; italics mine): brahman is not merely either the
manifest or the unmanifest, but rather both underlies and constitutes all subjects and all
objects our self and the world.
The sages characterisation of the self as a being free from hunger, thirst, old age, and
death may also illuminate an important aspect of the Upanishads teachings on the self, which
is that this is a kind of knowledge aimed at a particular end: as Roebuck notes, not material

5
success or even intellectual satisfaction but rather at enabling the questioner to become free of
worldly suffering and limitations (xv). This is evident from Indras recurring reasons for
returning to Prajapati: because suffering or the like is still present in the explanations, he finds
no satisfaction here (200-202). Another frequently cited corollary to knowledge of the self is
that it enables one to transcend fear: Yajnavalkya declares that [b]rahman is fearless: the one
who knows this becomes fearless brahman (76), a description echoed by Sakayanya: This [the
self] is the immortal, the fearless: this is brahman (353).
Despite the primary focus on the individuals personal liberation, there also exist in the
Upanishads suggestions of going beyond the individual self to show concern for others welfare.
An interesting passage in the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad extends the concept of self as world,
declaring that [o]neself (atman) is a world for all beings, and that
[w]hen one gives shelter to human beings, when one gives them food, one
becomes a world for human beings. When one finds grass and water for animals,
one becomes a world for animals. When wild beasts and birds, and all creatures
right down to the ants, find a living in ones house, one becomes a world for
them. As one desires safety for ones own world, all beings desire safety for the
one who knows this (23).
The concluding sentence connects for us these acts of charity with the knowledge of self. The
this that is known is the identity of atman with brahman. The knowledge of ones fundamental
identity with all creatures the ability to see, as the Isa Upanishad describes, All beings in the
self, / And the self in all beings (8) reminds one that just as oneself desires safety, so too do
other beings. This realization imbues one with a sympathy for the entire creation.

6
The final verse of the Katha Upanishad affirms that not only has Naciketas attained an
exalted state, but that so will any other who knows this [knowledge] in relation to the self
(292); thus the compiler of this text is preserving the formula for the good of all future seekers.
The closing invocation asks not merely for individual realization, but rather that: Together may
it protect us two / Together may it profit us two: / Together may we do a heros work (292). The
two in this story are Yama and Naciketas, but could equally be taken to be any teacher and
student, or any pair of people. It proceeds, May we learn intelligently: / May we never hate one
another (292). There may be seen to be a causal relationship between these: if one learns
intelligently, realizing the identity of ones self with the eternal brahman, and by implication
with all other selves, there is no reason to harbour hatred towards any other being. It is not only
that, as the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad declares, fear arises from a second (19) things such as
hate and strife also arise only from a second. Now, as the same text also describes, the primordial
atman had no pleasure either because when alone one has no pleasure; this lack necessitated
his creation of a companion (19-20). This explains perhaps why the Katha invocation continues
to employ us two. However, as long as we can learn intelligently through the methods
outlined above, we may attain the knowledge that we are in fact one; from this we may hope to
never hate one another, and perhaps to experience, in the words of the common Upanishadic
refrain that ends this invocation, Peace, peace, peace (292) both within ourselves and the
world.

I wholeheartedly welcome all comments, questions, or feedback you may have. Please write to me
through Academia.edu or at maxwellcooper2@gmail.com.

7
Works Cited
The Upanisads. Trans. Valerie Roebuck. London: Penguin Books, 2003. Print.
Roebuck, Valerie. Introduction. The Upanisads. Trans. Valerie Roebuck. London: Penguin
Books, 2003. xv-xli. Print.

The Upanishads in a
Rationalist-Buddhist
Perspective
by Dr. Victor Gunasekara
1. The Vedic System

The earliest expression of

Indian religious speculation is
contained in the Vedas. They
have been dated variously
(some with an exaggerated
antiquity), but their composition
may have been in process when
the Indo-Aryans migrated to
India from Iran about 1500 BCE.
But the bulk of the Vedas, and
the development of the Vedic
religion is undoubtedly Indian.
By the time of Mahavira and the
Buddha (the fifth century BCE) it
had produced a large body of
texts which were maintained in
an oral tradition. The foundation
of what may be designated

CONTENTS

1. The Vedic
System
2. Vedas and the
Brhmaas
3. Upanishads:
General
Considerations
4. Brief
Consideration of
the Early
Upanishads
o (a) the
Bihadray
aka
Upanishad
o (b) The
Chndogya
Upanishad
o (c) The

simply as the Vedic system

[Note 1] were the three original
Vedas which formed its first tier.

Taittiriya
Upanishad
o (d) The
Aitreya
Upanishad
o (e) The
Kaushtaki
Upanishad
o (f) Other
early
Upanishads
5. The Central
Concepts of the
Upanishads
6. Upanishads and
Buddhism
7. Upanishads and
Rationalism
8. Conclusion

These original Vedas postulated a whole pantheon

of gods who were worshiped and oblations offered to
them. The worship of these gods became associated
with the practice of animal sacrifice to propitiate them.
The meat of the slaughtered animals together with the
juice of the Soma plant (unidentified but thought to be

alcoholic) along with other oblations were offered to the

gods. As the system developed the sacrifice became
highly organized with a special class of Brahmin priests
devoted to the conduct of the ritual. The religious texts
associated with these sacrificial rituals came to be
known as the Brhmanas which were simply appended
to the various Vedas. These formed the second tier of
Indian religious texts.
It was during this time that social divisions
embodied in the varna (caste) theory became an
integral part of the social system. According to this
society was divided into four castes [Note 2], Brhmana
(hereditary priests) considered the highest, Katriya
(kings and warriors), Vaisyas (artisans, farmers and the
like) and Sdras (slaves, servants, menial workers, and
outcasts who were usually the non-Aryan inhabitants).
The Sdras occupied the lowest position in society,
while the other three were considered the higher
castes. At the same the life a person of the higher
castes was divided into four stages (ramas)
consisting of (1) the Brahmacrya devoted to study
under a Vedic teacher, (2) the householder (Gihasta)
devoted to family and professional life, (3) the
Vanaprastha phase when the person left the communal
life and retired to the forest, and finally (4) the Sanysa
phase which the person became a wandering ascetic.
The Upanishads, which constituted the third tier of
the Vedic system, were composed by sages who had
retired to the forest either as Vanaprastha or Sanysin.
Even though their names are given in the texts not
much more is known about them [Note 3]. The

10

Upanishads are appended to the traditional Vedas and

Brahmanas as a third section called the ranyakas (or
forest treatises). In course of time they came to be
regarded are different genre of writing. They were the
first texts to pose philosophical questions in their own
right. While the Upanishads did not reject either the
Vedas or the Brhmanas and in fact incorporated the
ancient pantheon into their thinking they attempted to
explain the Vedic-Brhmanic practices, including the
sacrifice, in philosophical or metaphorical terms. It is
generally claimed that most of later philosophical
speculation in India were derived from the Upanishadic
tradition, and thus ultimately from the Vedas. With the
early classical Upanishads we may consider the Vedic
tradition to have come to its culmination. For this
reason the Upanishads are sometimes referred to as the
Vednta (end-of-Veda).
Post-Upanishadic speculation took several routes.
One was to deny the Vedic system altogether,
especially its supernatural aspects including its
pantheon of gods and the doctrine of post-mortem
survival which the Upanishadic seers had developed
from the rudimentary views on the subject contained in
the early Vedic hymns. They are generally reffered to in
Indian philosophy as the Crvkas or Lokyatikas. [Note
4]
Directly opposite to the materialists were those
who took Upanishadic speculation in the direction of
Monotheism. The Upanishadic seers were, of course,
theists as they accepted most of the Vedic pantheon.
Even in the earliest Upanishads the central concepts

11

like Brahman and tman were interpreted in theistic

terms. However many of the later verse Upanishads
were unabashedly theistic. This line of thinking
culminated in the Theism of the Bhagavat Git, and
from there it passed into medieval, and modern
Hinduism.
In between these two developments leading to
materialism on the one hand and monotheism on the
other several other schools emerged associated with
various sramana thinkers. Of these two have been of
continuous historical importance in India. These were
the teaching of Mahvira who founded the Jain religion,
and the Buddha whose teaching came to be known as
the Buddha-Dhamma. While the Jains have been a
continuous force in India they have been a minority
movement and have not been able to break out of
India. Buddhism however flourished in India for many
centuries after Asoka adopted it as his religion. During
this period it was Indias principal religion. Its
relationship to the doctrines of the Upanishads will be
explored in this essay. The decline of Buddhism came
from two sources the resurgence of Hinduism, and the
persecution from the Muslims who conquered most of
Northern India. But the decline of Buddhism in India
took place at a time that it spread to other parts of Asia,
and thus it has survived in various schools.
Other than Jainism and Buddhism there are several
other developments which fall between the extremes of
materialism and monotheism. These include the
Vaisheshika, the Nyya and the Skya systems. The
first two of these are closely related to each other. They

12

emphasized the investigation of the material world by

using the rules of logic. Salvation comes from a logical
understanding of the conditions of the material world.
Their failing was that they did not employ the methods
of experimentation which was the reason for the
dominance of Western Science since the eighteenth
century. The metaphysical approach which was
characteristic of these systems is best exemplified in
the Skya. It developed a system of metphysical
dualism which recognizes two dominant forces Nature
(prakti) and Person (Purua) without giving a place to a
supreme deity. These developments will not be explored
in this essay.
In the next section we shall consider briefly the
Vedic and Brhman background, and in the succeeding
sections explore various aspects of the Upanishads.
2. The Vedas and the Brhmanas

Since the Upanishad were the continuation of the

Vedas and the Brahmanas something need be said
about them. At its origin this religion was essentially a
deification of the forces of nature and provided some
kind of rationalization of the observed world. This is
true of many other primitive religions as well. But in
time Vedas grew into an elaborate system of religion,
going through several stages of development.
There were originally three Vedas the g, Yagur and
Sma Vedas [Note 5]. It is to them that reference is
made in the Buddhist and Jain texts. They contained
chants and hymns recited by the priests who presided
over various stages in the Vedic sacrifices. The g

13

hymns were recited by the chief priest (hot) and the

Yagur by the priests in charge of the details of the
sacrifice (advatyu) The Sma contained chants sung
during the Soma sacrifice by the initiating priest
(udgtr). Of these the g was the most important,
many of the hymns in the other two Vedas being culled
from the g.
The Vedas introduced a whole pantheon of deities.
The principal ones (with the roles assigned to them)
were: Prajpati (Creator, especially in the g), Brahm
(the Chief), Mitra and Varua (kingship, guardian of ta,
Indra (Controller), the twin Avins (divine physicians),
Agni (fire), Bhaspati (divine priest), Dhtar
(Establisher), the Maruts (storm, etc.), Parjanya (rain),
bhu (artisans), Rudra (nature), Savitar and Srya
(Sun), Tvaar (Carpenter ?), Vyu (wind), Vtra
(adversary of Indra), Yama (ruler of the deceased), Yami
(twin sister of Yama) etc. It is said that 33 gods (some of
them actually groups of gods) have been counted in the
Vedas [Note 6]. As the functions assigned to them show
that they not only covered the forces of nature but are
also persons capable of intervening in the affairs of
humans.
The centre of the Vedic religion was the sacrifice.
The grandest of them was the Horse Sacrifice
(avamedha) which could be afforded only by kings and
the wealthy. [Note 7] But even householders were
expected to offer oblations to gods sometimes the meat
of sacrificed domestic animals. Thus in the Soma
sacrifice in which the juice of the Soma plant was
offered as the oblation it was customary to sacrifice a

14

goat. In the early period the gods were supposed to

come in chariots to partake of the offerings. Later they
were offered through the instrumentality of the fire
(agnihotra).
It is not necessary to consider the hymns even in
the most important of the Vedas, the g. Whether they
have literary merit is not our concern, but they certainly
contribute little to physical or metaphysical knowledge.
The section of the g that is quoted the most is the
cosmological theory contained in Chapter 10 of the g,
particularly the creation stanza (129) also known as the
Nsadiya Hymn. This story of creation persisted through
the Brhmanas and into the Upanishads. Because of its
pervasive influence it deserves to be quoted here:
1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
2.Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and
night's divider.
That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.
3.Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.
4.Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
5.Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder
6.Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this
creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
7. He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.
(g Veda 10.129)

This hymn displays a degree of scepticism which is

later revived in the Upanishads. It begins by postulating
that the primordial condition was one of complete void
neither existent nor non-existent. Then creation takes
place and everything is post-creation, even the Gods

15

said to be later than creation. But despite this

scepticism it is clearly implied that a Creator as the
primeval cause of creation (That One Thing). But its
cause is not explained because no one knows whence
it came into being. This continued to be the theory of
creation underlying the Upanishads, even though
various details are changed or added in different
Upanishads. The next verse (10.130) extols the efficacy
of sacrifice.
The Brhmaas, of which there are several
compilations, were mainly concerned with the Vedic
ritual of the sacrifice. A student of these texts has
described their content as follows:
The
practically
all-powerful
sacrificial (rauta) rites are the one and only theme
from which all discussions start and on which
everything including the secondary themes hinges.
The very aim of the compilers is not to describe,
but to explain the origin, meaning, andraison
detre of the ritual acts to be performed and to
prove their validity and the significance and
suitability of the mantras and chants used as well
as the mutual relations of the acts and their
connections with the phenomenal reality. Jan
Gonda, Vedic Literature (Sahits and Brhmaas)
(1975), p.339.

As the Brhmanas were closely associated with the

sacrificial ritual, and as this did not figure prominently
in the practice of the Upanishadic seers there is no

16

need to consider them further in this essay.

3. The Upanishads: General Considerations

This essay is mainly concerned with the

Upanishads which form the final tier of the Vedic
system. They were composed by forest dwellers they
had little opportunity to perform the elaborate
sacrifices. So the Brhmaas were of little use to them.
But it is significant that they did not repudiate the Vedic
sacrifices completely; their position was that it was the
duty of the householders to attend to this ritual
obligations. [Note 8]
In particular we shall consider the Upanishads from
two perspectives the Buddhist and the rationalistmaterialist. In doing so we shall consider primarily
those Upanishads which scholars believe were
composed before the time of the Buddha. There are
well over hundred Upanishads in existence but only a
dozen or less of these are considered as early. These
are the Upanishads commented on by the Medieval
Hindu commentator Sankara [Note 9] who flourished in
the eighth century CE. They are also the ones that were
considered as the principal Upanishads by early
Western commentators like Paul Deussen. [Note 10].
The earliest of the extant Upanishads are the
Bihadrayaka and the Chndogya Upanishads all in
prose. Not only are they the earliest but also the
longest accounting for over three-quarters of the
principal Upanishads. They are considered as being
composed about the sixth century BCE. Three other
prose Upanishads are also considered pre-Buddhist.
These are the Taittiriya, Aitreya and Kausitaki

17

Upanishads. The other principal Upanishads were the

Kena, the Kaha, the I, the Muaka, the Prana, the
Mkya, and the vetvatara. To these the Maitri
Upanishad is sometimes added although it is clearly
post-Buddhist. As stated this essay will be confined to
the five pre-Buddhist Upanishads and only few
references will be made to the other principal
Upanishads.
The principal doctrines of the Upanishads have
been summed up by an Indian writer who is
fundamentally sympathetic to these doctrines. He lists
them as follows:
The fundamental doctrines of the Upanishads
may be summed up as follows: the Self in man is
Brahman; nothing but Brahman exists, because
everything exists in Brahman, and Brahman is
therefore the one ultimate reality ; the world is
real ; it cannot be unreal, because it emanated
from Brahman, the True of the true ; that the object
of the Upanishads is to impart the right knowledge,
by means of which tman would be found identical
with Brahman; lastly, Brahman is full of bliss,
feelings not being contraband for Brahman. The
reader will now be able to find for himself
that there is not the slightest resemblance
between Buddhism and the doctrines of the tman
Philosophy (Sures Chandra Chakravarti, The
Philosophy of the Upanishads. Nag Publishers, n.d.,
p. 160)

18

Some students of the Upanishads may disagree

with Chakravartis summary, but there is substantial
agreement that the main propositions stated in the
above summary are in fact contained in the principal
Upanishads. If in Chakravartis fashion the principal
conclusions of the present essay are summarized they
could be stated as follows:
The fundamental concepts of Brahman and
tman are pure metaphysical inventions and do not
correspond to anything in reality. Brahman though
presented as an abstract ground of being or the
ultimate reality is nothing but the personification
of Brahm, the chief god in the Vedic pantheon also
known under other names. Like the other gods of
the Vedic pantheon Brahm does not exist in
reality. To state that everything exist in Brahman
is a meaningless statement, as there is no
evidence that Brahman itself exists. The Self in
man is a mythical component corresponding to the
Soul in some other religions. It does not correspond
to Brahman which is the representation of a
mythical god posited to exist in a plane different to
that of humans. The world is certainly real, but it is
not an emanation from Brahman or the handiwork
of some creator. There is no resemblance between
Buddhism and the tman philosophy.

It will be seen that except for the last sentence the

thesis of the present essay is almost the opposite of the
fundamental doctrines which Chakravarti has found in

19

the Upanishads.
This does not mean that the Upanishads did not
introduce concepts that have been new to Indian
thinking and that these concepts had some influence on
subsequent thinking. In many respects it was an
improvement over the views advanced in the early
Vedas like the gveda. Under the Brahmanical system
the worship of gods enjoined in the early Vedas had
degenerated into a barbaric cult of animal sacrifice and
indulgence in food and drink. The Upanishads curbed
these tendencies and put the emphasis on the search
for knowledge even though the knowledge that it
claimed to have discovered is no knowledge at all in
terms of modern rational and scientific ways of
discovering truth. It also developed new theories,
notably the doctrine of Karma and Sasra which
whether they were right or wrong did pave the way for
a more humane ethical system. With sacrifice
downplayed the Upanishads introduced meditation as a
spiritual exercise. Versions of these Upanishadic
innovations have passed on to most Indian modes of
thought, including to some extent the Jain and the
Buddhist.
4. Brief Outline of the Earliest Upanishads

Before considering the principal doctrines of the

Upanishads it would be useful to consider how they are
presented in the individual Upanishads. The longer
Upanishads are divided into chapters and sections, e.g
in the Brihadrayaka they are called Adyyas and
Brhmaas, in the Chndyogya they are called
Praphakas and Khaas, etc. But there is very little

20

systematic organization of content, and the same

doctrine is presented in various way in the different
Upanishads. It is not the intention below to summarize
the various Upanishads, but only mention the principal
doctrines contained in them which are necessary to
distill the essence of Upanishadic thinking.

(a) The Bihadrayayaka Upanishad

The Bihadrayaka is the earliest and the longest
of the Upanishads. It consists of six chapters (adyya).
It starts by an attempt to explain the horse sacrifice
(avamedha) in symbolic terms (e.g. dawn is the head,
sun is the eye, etc.) There is no condemnation of this
sacrifice of an innocent animal merely to please (and
feed) the gods. It shows the ambivalence of the
Upanishads towards the sacrifice which was the centrepiece of the Vedas and the Brhmanas, not directly
approving of it, not condemning it. In g Veda (10.129130) creation is seen as the sacrifice of the primeval
man. Now the sacrifice of the horse is equated to the
act of creation. From the various parts of the horse
come things as varied as water, earth, fire, The organ of
speech, and other human faculties. Other forms of the
creation myth are also recounted in this chapter.
In the second chapter we have the first foray into
Upanishadic metaphysics. This is contained in the
discussion between Blki Grgya and Ajtaatru, king
of Benares. Blki claims to reveal the nature of
Brahman if he is given a large number of cows. After
the king agrees to this Blki says that Brhman is the

21

being in the sun, moon, lightening, space, fire, water,

being in the mirror, etc. It was easy for the king to
refute these claims, and he then gives what is
considered the true answer viz. that Brahman is the Self
(tman). [Note 11] This gives the famous Upanishadic
equation: Brahman = Self. But neither of the terms in
this equation is really explained either in this Upanishad
or any of the others which repeat this formula ad
nauseum. To add to the confusion two forms of
Brhman are mentioned the gross Brahman which is
ultimately equated to the Sun, and the subtle form
which is equated to the breath (prna) and lives within
the human body. Thus prna also enters the vocabulary
as an important term in the Upanishads.
After Blki accepts Ajtaatrus view the two
encounter a sleeping man. This lead Ajtaatru to give
a discourse on sleep which is another favourite theme
in the Upanishads. During sleep it is claimed the inner
Soul is set free to roam about and this explains the
dream state. Various stages of sleep are identified, but
not in the way a modern psychologist would analyze
dreams.
Next comes the discourse of Yjavalkya (who is
about to become a Vanaprastin) with his wife Maitrey.
[Note 12] His wife wanted to know the secret of
immotality and the husband replies that this comes not
through wealth but through the knowledge that
Brahman as the immortal self (or soul). When one has
gained this knowledge then after death there is no
consciousness (na pretya sajsti). This statement
confuses Maitrey, as is likely to confuse anyone, but

22

her remonstrance is met by the statement that there is

no duality but only non-duality (advaitya) , i.e. only the
Brahman which is the eternal Soul is real and true.
Once again one unknown is explained by another
unknown.
The last section of the second chapter of this
Upanishad is the so-called honey (madu) section,
which is an instruction said to have been given by
Dadyac rthavaa to the two Avins. It lists 14 entities
namely: earth, waters, fire, wind, sun, quarters of
heaven, moon, lightning, thunder, space, Law (dharma),
truth, mankind and Soul (tman). Then with respect to
each it makes the following statement (illustrated here
for the first item earth): This earth is (like) honey for
all beings, and all beings are (like) honey for this earth.
(The same with) the shining, immortal being who is in
this earth, and the shining, immortal corporeal being in
the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Selfknowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this
(underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of
Brahman) is (means of becoming) all [Note 13]. This
formula is repeated for each of the other entities in the
list (with slight changes). The reference to an immortal
being is an indication always immanent in the
Upanishads but rarely stated openly is that the
Brahman is not really a neuter but a person (of
unspecified gender) which it is not too difficult to
identify with God for the theistically oriented. This
honey section is considered as an important passage
giving the essence of the Upanishadic position; it is
therefore necessary to point out that it is basically an

23

unsound argument that is advanced in this section.

In the third Chapter we have Yjavalkya at the
sacrifice of Janaka, king of Videha. The king offers
reward to the most learned Brahmin. Yjavalkya
stakes his claim, but eight other Brahmins contest this.
Then debate ensues. The Brahmns (with the subjects
debated) were: Avala (sacrificial rewards), rthabhga
(life after death), Bhujyu (where horse-sacrificers go),
Ushasta (self), Kahola (giving up desires), Grgi (the
Universe), Uddlaka (string which holds the worlds).
Clearly these questions cannot be settled then (or even
now). Yjavalkya simply answers his critics with his
theory of the Self. The rest of the Chapter deals with
debates with several other seers.
The fourth Chapter records debates in the court of
Janaka with the king and with several others on the
subject of what Brahman is. Yjavalkya rejects Jitvan's
view that it is speech, Uddlka's view that it is the lifebreath, Barku's view that it is sight, Gardabhivipita's
view that it is hearing, Satyakma's view that it is the
mind, and finally Vidagdha's view that it is the heart. He
sticks to his view that it is the Self.
Several other matters are discussed in the court of
Janaka. There is a long discussion on the Vedic gods. To
Janakas question What is the light of man,
Yjavalkya first mentions the sun, moon, fire etc. and
finally says that when all these are gone it is the Self
that is the light of man. He identifies the state of sleep
as an existence between the present world and the next
one. The dream state is seen as one where the Soul

24

wanders free. This chapter also contains a rudimentary

doctrine of karma again attributed to Yjavalkya. It
also contains Yjavalkyas exposition of the doctrine of
reincarnation. It concludes with another version of
Yjavalkyas dialogue with his wife Maitreyi,
The fifth Chapter deals with a miscellany of matters
starting with subjects of meditation. As Brahman is the
central concept in this Upanishad the first meditations
mentioned relate to it. Brahman is first to be considered
as space (ka), then as the heart, then as the real or
the true (satya-brahman). This meditation consists of
reflecting on the three syllables making the word
satya. Then comes meditations on mind, lightning,
vedas as a cow, and lastly on the digestive process
(called the Vaisvanra fire). The path of the departing
soul after death is described as first reaching the air,
then the sun, then the moon, and finally a world free of
grief and cold where it dwells for endless years. No
karma or reincarnation is considered. The Chapter
concludes with a disquisition on the breath, the Gayatri
verse and a prayer for the safe passage after death as
indicated previously.
The last chapter begins with a disputation among
the various human organs (like speech, eye, ear, mind,
organ of generation) as which is the best. They all
concede that the this has to be accorded to the vital
breath because this is the last to be extinguished at
death. Then follows an account of what happens after
death which is quite different from that given in the
previous chapter. Now two paths are identified, one
going to the world of the gods, and the other to the

25

world of the fathers, depending on their actions. Those

who do not qualify of either of these two paths become
insects, moths and the like. This is taken as another
statement of the doctrine of transmigration. This theory
also occurs in the Chdogya Upanishad.

(b) The Chndogya Upanishad

This Upanishad is the last section of the Chndogya
Brhmaa which is in turn is attached to the Sma
Veda. The Upanishad has 8 chapters and most of it is
concerned with the Saman, which is the Samavedic
chant of the Soma sacrifice. There is an overlap
between this Upanishad and the Bihadrayaka with
some repetitions. It is speculated that both these
Upanishads were composed out of preexisting
Upanishadic material..
The first two chapters glorify the chanting of the
Sma Veda. It equates the High Chant (Udgita) to the
mystical word Om. It goes into great detail about the
conduct of the Soma sacrifice. This is pure Brhmaa
stuff.
In Chapter 3 the sun is called the honey of the
gods, and the various chants are compared to the rays
of the sun. In this chapter Brahman (usually in the
neuter) is referred to as the (masculine) god Brahm:
Verily, all this universe is Brahman. From Him do all
things originate, into him do they dissolve, and by Him
are they sustained. ( 3.14, Swahananda translation). This is the
same as the later traditional Hindu view of God as the

26

Creator, Sustainer and Destroyer. The chapter

concludes with the origin of the world as the primordial
egg [Note 14], another elaboration of the Vedic creation
myth. Chapter 4 narrates several stories and contains
instructions for the conduct of the sacrifice.
Chapter 5 begins by extolling the breath above
other bodily functions (as in the contest between the
bodily functions given in the Bihadrayaka). It then
details the five fires into which offerings have to be
made to obtain certain benefits. The leads (5.5 - 5.10)
to another of the classic statements of the doctrine of
transmigration as it appears in the Upanishads. This
knowledge is given by a Katriya king to a Brahmin
Gautama. The two paths, the way of the fathers
(Pitiyna) and the way of the gods (Devayna) are
mentioned, and in addition the return to the earth
(Manussayna?). The last is the true doctrine of
transmigration. But what is not clear is whether the first
two paths lead to a final destination or only to a
temporary reward to be followed by the transmigration
based on action (karman).
Chapter 6 begins with the famous conversation
between Uddalka runi and his son Svetaketu.
Uddalka asks his son if he has been instructed in the
teaching by which that (which) is unheard becomes
heard, and so on for the other senses. On being told
that he has not Uddalka gives the metaphor of clay:
... just as through a single clod of clay all that is made
of clay would become known, for all modifications is but
the name based upon words but the clay alone is real.
( 6.1.6) He then extends the analogy to creation and

27

says In the beginning this was Being alone only one

without a second (6.2.1). Then after a long
conversation, with that peculiar Upanishadic logic, he
reduces the ultimate substance (clay in his analogy) to
Self. The chapter closes with Svetakatu fully instructed:
That Being which is this subtle essence (cause), even
That all this world has for its self. That is the true. That
is the Atman. That thou art, O Svetaketu. (6.14.3) This
then is the highest and ultimate truth of the
Upanishads, its supreme mystery, which is said to lead
the person who has this knowledge to ultimate
liberation.
Chapter 7 starts with the conversation between
Nrada and Sanatkumra. Nrada claims to have
mastered all the traditional knowledge from the Vedas
to more secular subjects. But Sanatkumra dismisses
all that as mere Name only. He then goes to list the
things that are greater than Name. He gives a typical
Upanishadic list, each of the items in this list being
greater than the preceding one, as follows: Speech,
Mind, Will, Intelligence, Contemplation, Understanding,
Strength, Food, Water, Fire, Space, Memory, Aspiration
and Breath (prna). Worshiping any one of these gives
its own rewards, but Nrada is encouraged to go to the
next on the list. The culmination of Sanatkumras
instruction thus ends with Prna: Just as the spokes of
the wheel are fastened to the nave, so is all this
fastened to this Prna . Prna moves by Prna , Prna
gives Prna and it gives Prna . Prna is the father,
Prna is the mother, Prna is the brother, Prna is the
sister, Prna is the preceptor, Prna is the Brahmana.
(7.15.1) But Prna itself is not the ultimate origin

28

because Everything springs from Atman (7.26.1),

The last Chapter 8 contains a particular
Upanishadic doctrine on which we have not commented
so far. This is the doctrine of the Heart, which could
actually be called the Fallacy of the Heart. This is that
the heart is at the centre of the cognitive process in
humans. A Vedic teacher is asked to instruct his pupils:
As far, verily, as this world-space (aya ka) extends,
so far extends the space within the heart. Within it,
indeed, are contained both heaven and earth, both fire
and wind, both sun and moon, lightning and the stars,
both what one possesses here and what one does not
possess ; everything here is contained within it. [Note
15] The heart is called the City of Brahman.
The heart fallacy would have come naturally to the
authors of the Upanishads. As priests officiating at the
sacrifice they would have been aware of the anatomy of
the animals they butchered. They would have observed
the large heart in animals like the horse, and noticed its
links through veins and arteries to other organs. They
transposed this to humans and thought that the human
heart (from which 101 arteries are supposed to spread)
is the centre of all emotions and thinking. This Chapter
(and this Upanishad) ends with the popular story
Prajpati, Indra and Virochana.
(c) The Taittiriya Upanishad
This short Upanishad is considered one of the
earlier Upanishads. It is attached to the Yajur Veda and
has only 3 chapters traditionally called the iksh Valli,
Brahmnanda Valli and the Bhigu Valli. It adds very

29

little to what we have encountered in the

Bihadrayaka and the Chndogya Upanishads.
The first Valli, called the Students Chapter gives
instruction to a new student. It deals with the teachers
and students prayers, phonetics, the students
discipline, reading of Vedas etc. What may be called the
students curriculum is stated as including the
following: Right (ta), Truth (satya),Austerity (tapas),
Self-control (dama), Tranquillity (lama), the [sacrificial]
Fires, the Agnihotra sacrifice, Guests,
Humanity (manussa), Offspring, Begetting, and
Procreation. It is curious to find offspring, begetting and
procreation included in he Student phase whereas it is
traditionally placed in the householder phase. Perhaps
what is meant is that students are taught to engage in
these activities after their student phase is over. The
chapter contains a great deal of Vedic lore such as the
four mystical utterances: Bhr, Bhuvas, Suvar and
Mahas.
The second Valli called the Bliss of Brhman (or
Brahm) introduces the doctrine of the five sheaths.
This attempts to trace the course of evolution from the
primal tman through the the five essences (or
sheaths) to the human person. These five elements are
listed as food, breath, mind, understanding and bliss. A
reverse progression is also mentioned when it is stated
that He who knows this, on departing from this world,
proceeds on to that self which consists of food,
proceeds on to that self which consists of breath,
proceeds on to that self which consists of mind,
proceeds on to that self which consists of

30

understanding, proceeds on to that self which consists

of bliss. [Note 16] (Tait, 2,8) This has been interpreted
as implying that within the self there are various selves, but the true knower must advance to
the highest self (Hume, Thirteen Principal Upnishads, p. 289,
note)
The doctrine of the five sheaths is a curious
classification of the components of the human
personality. It could be contrasted to the five
components of personality in Buddhism, viz. form
(rpa), feeling (vedan), perception (sa), Mental
formations, (sakra), and consciousness (via).
The final Valli is another instruction from father to
son, here from Varua to Bhigu. Varua guides his son
to Brahman through food, then breath, then mind, then
understanding, and finally the bliss of brahman. These
are stages which occur in various combinations in many
other places in the Upanishads.

(d) The Aitreya Upanishad

This Upanishad, which is a part of the Aitreya
rayaka of the g Veda, is the short Upanishad
consisting of three short chapters; its authorship is
attributed to Mahidsa.
The first Chapter deals with creation. It starts with
the sentence: In the beginning, tman (Self, Soul),
verily, one only, was here no other winking thing
whatever. He bethought himself: Let me now create
worlds. This faces the dilemma of all creation theories.

31

It posits of a creator (here tman) but it cannot explain

how the creator came to be on the scene. The use of
the masculine pronoun he with reference to tman
indicates that the creator is a person, not an inanimate
principle.
The order of creation as given in this Upanishad
differs from versions in other Upanishads but involve
the same kind of elements. Here tman is said to have
first created these worlds: water (ambhas), lightrays (marci), death (mara), the waters (ap). Then
other elements like speech, breath, sight, hearing, etc.
are said to have been created next. These together
form the person (purua). We have the peculiar
situation where personal characteristics like speech are
created before the person is fully existent.
The second Chapter is interpreted as giving a
version of the reincarnation doctrine. But it is a very
anemic version of reincarnation, not as clear as in other
places in the Upanishads. Three births are identified in
this section, two in the current and the third in the
future life. The first is the physical conception as an
embryo (garbha). The next stage is self-becoming
(tma-bhya). This allows the person to do pious deeds
(punya karman). After the person dies the third birth
takes place according to his deeds (kta-ktya). We shall
examine the Upanishadic theoryof reincarnation later.
The third section identifies the Self with knowledge
(or intelligence) which is the ultimate Brahman.

32

(e) The Kausitaki Upanishad

This belongs to the g Veda and consists of four
chapters. The first chapter contains a more detailed
account of reincarnation than is found in the Aitreya
Upanishad. Here the sage Citra Ggyyani tells
Uddalka: All who depart from this world go to the
moon. In the former, (the bright) half, the moon
delights in their spirits; in the other, (the dark) half, the
moon sends them on to be born again. Verily, the moon
is the door of the Svarga world (the heavenly world).
Now, if a man objects to the moon (if one is not
satisfied with life there) the moon sets him free. But if a
man does not object, then the moon sends him down as
rain upon this earth. And according to his deeds and
according to his knowledge he is born again here as a
worm, or as an insect, (etc.)or as a man, or as
something else in different places. (Kau 1.2) Clearly
the moon is seen as the gateway either to the path of
the gods (devayna) or the world of the fathers
(ptriyna) or for rebirth again on earth. If one is on the
path of the gods he could pass through the worlds of
various gods (like Varuna or Indra) and finally reach the
world of Brahm (Hiranyagarbha) as his ultimate
destination. This final destination is described in terms
not too different from that of the Islamic paradise!
Chapter 2 starts by giving the views on Brahman
by a number of seers. They do not say anything new
other than going through the usual Upanishadic
repertoire of Speech, Breath, Eye, Ear, Mind and
Intelligence. Then it goes on to give rites and sacrifices
that should be done to secure various favours.

33

Considerable ingenuity is expended on this subject.

Thus Pratardana speaks of an Inner Agnihotra
Sacrifice as follows: As long as a person is speaking
he is not able to breathe. Then he is sacrificing breath
(pra) in speech. As long as a person is speaking he is
not able to breathe. Then he is sacrificing speech
(vc)in breath (2.5.4). So whether you are speaking or
breathing you are automatically making a sacrifice.
Similar absurdities are given as rites to obtain all
manner of things like securing ones own welfare,
securing the welfare of ones children, winning
anothers affection, removing sin, etc. There is even a
rite prescribed during sexual intercourse (2.10)! The
chapter concludes with the ritual to be followed when
the father is about to die to transfer his tradition to his
son (2.15).
The third chapter begins with Indras instruction to
Pratardana. This discourse is concerned with the breath.
There is nothing new here and can be omitted.
The fourth and last chapter deals with the promise
to declare Brahman given by Grgya Blki to
Ajtaatru king of Ksi for the reward of a thousand
cows. (These Upanishadic seers will not give out
anything without some material gain for themselves!)
Blki then gives a succession of definitions like the
person in the sun, the person in the moon, the person
in fire, the person in the mirror. the person here who
asleep moves about in a dream, etc. All these are
refuted by Ajtaatru. Finally Blki acknowledges
defeat by accepting studentship under (goes fuel in
hand to) Ajtaatru. Taking the example of a sleeping

34

man who hs just woken up Ajtaatru explains that it is

the breathing spirit (pra) and the intelligential self
(prajtman) within the body (arirtmn) that is what
should be taken as the Brahman.

(f) Other Upanishads

While the five Upanishads we have considered are
important for our purpose as they are claimed to be the
pre-Buddhist Upanishads the others too may be briefly
noticed.
The Kaha Upanishad is the first Upanishad to be
translated to a European language. It begins with
Vjaravasa about to sacrifice some old cows. His son
Nachiketas pesters him for sacrificing worthless cows to
the gods. In a fit of rage he gives Nachiketas to Yama
the ruler of the afterworld. The Upanishad records the
conversation between Nachiketas and Yama. Yama
gives Nachiketas three boons. The first that Nachiketas
chooses is to be reconciled with his father, the second
on how go to the heavenly world, and the third what
happens after death. This leads to a discussion of what
takes place after death, and on the life-breath (pra)
which is the favourite topic in the Upanishads.
The vetvatara Upanishad is one of the most
theistic of the Upanishads with many similarities to the
Bhagavad Gt [Note 17]. Each of its six chapters
consists of an adulation of God. This Upanishad also
introduces concepts which have become integral to
later Hinduism. The fourth Chapter mentions my for

35

the first time and last chapter extols devotion (bhakti)

to God as an essential virtue. The Upanishad ends in
this vein: To one who has the highest
devotion (bhakti) for God, ... to him these matters which
have been declared become manifest, a great
soul (mahtman).
The Muaka Upanishad is somewhat eclectic
and seems to both endorse and to oppose the old Vedic
tradition. In the first of the three chapters Agiras
instructs his pupil that there are two kinds of
knowledge, the lower knowledge which includes the
traditional Vedas and the higher which contains only the
knowledge of the Imperishable. It is interesting that it
says that this Imperishable is without caste (avara).
However the performance of the traditional ritual is
endorsed: the works which the sages saw [in the Vedic
hymns] follow them, this is your path to the world of
good deeds (1.2.1). The second chapter states the by
now traditional doctrine of the self. The last chapter,
which deal with the way to Brahma extols ascetism.
This is the path to the Brahman, while the rituals
endorsed in the first chapter only lead to a heavenly
realm.
The Upanishad is the shortest of the Principal
Upanishads. It is extremely theistic and starts with: By
the Lord () enveloped must all this be...
The Prana Unpanishad is a relatively late
Upanishad. It consists of answers to six questions posed
to Pippalda by six other seers. These questions deal
with a miscellany of matters such as: the origin of

36

creatures, superiority of breath, how the tman exits

the body, dreams, OM, and the sixteen parts of man.
These are treated in the traditional Upanishadic
manner.
The Kena Upanishad says that people cannot
know Brahman and what people worship as it is false:
That which is not expressed by speech and by which
speech is expressed, that alone know as Brahman, not
that which people here adore (1.5-6). In the next
khanda there is a confusing verse which says that
Brahman is not understood by those who understand
it, it is understood by those who do not understand it
(2.3). This illustrates the kind of confusion that the very
concept of Brahman leads to. It claims that Brahman is
a mysterious entity yet speaks of it at other times in
human terms. This Upanishad concludes with the story
of Brahman engaged in a battle with the Asuras! Once
again Brahman is well and truly personified.
The six Upanishads covered in this section
complete the Upanishads which are regarded as the
main Upanishads. Sometimes the Maitri Upanishad is
also included in the early Upanishads. But it is clearly a
post-Buddhist Upanishad.
5. The Central Concepts of the Upanishads

The summary of the principal early Upanishads

given in the previous section has already uncovered
some of the principal concepts which underlie the
philosophy of the Upanishads. We shall now consider
these concepts critically, including some which had not

37

been specifically discussed.

(i) Brahman
Brahman is the central concept of the Upanishads.
But there is a fundamental contradiction in the usage of
this term. It is usually represented, especially by
Western admirers of the Upanishads, as an abstract
Ground of Being or the substrate of the Universe on
which everything is founded. [Note 18] In this sense it
could be seen as an impersonal force. In Sanskrit the
gender of the term is neuter and this will tend to
confirm this interpretation. Yet it is also spoken of as a
person, and identified with the supreme God of the
Brhmanism. In many places in the Upanishads the
question is posed What is Brahman or Explain
Brahman. When this is explanation is given the
reference is invariably to a person, a person of the
masculine gender and referred to as a He. In fact
Brahman and Brahm are used interchangeably in
many places. Several examples of this usage are given
in the previous section of this Essay.
What is Brahman ? is a frequent question asked
of seers in the early Upanishds. The answer given to
this is often a list of things and qualities. Amongst these
are: speech, breath, eye, touch, mind, heard, etc.
Usually each one of these is rejected in favour of the
succeeding term which to is rejected. The process
usually ends with Self (tman) being identified.
Ingenious explanations have been adduced to

38

explain the fundamental contradiction which underlies

Brahman, whether is an impersonal state or a person
analogous to the divine being of many other religions,
and therefore a person of some kind. The problem
which this kind of things leads to could be illustrated
from a statement in the Muaka Upanishad: Brahman
is infinite, and this conditioned Brahman is infinite. The
infinite proceeds from infinite. Then through knowledge,
realizing the infinitude of the infinite, it remains as
infinite alone.
If Brahman is taken as the supreme God then it
would be similar to the God of other monotheistic
religions like Yahweh in Judaism or Allah in Islam [Note
19]. This is also what the term ended in becoming in
classical Hinduism. Already in the Vedic texts we
encounter the anthropomorphic god Brahm who is
considered the chief the Vedic pantheon (but
sometimes Indra or Prajpati is given that title)
In both senses of the term, either as an impersonal
ground of being, or as a personal god, the term
Brahman is a purely metaphysical term. There is no
empirical counterpart or evidence produced in either of
these interpretations. It has to be accepted purely on
faith.
There is also the frequent assertion Brahman is
tman. Indeed this is often referred to as the supreme
mystery of the Upanishads and its most important piece
of knowledge. But this is simply replacing one
undefined term with another. So it is to the tman that
we must turn.

39

(ii) tman
This term is usually translated as Self or Soul,
with the former rendition being the more common.
However Self can have many meanings. There is the
usage of the term to refer to a physical person, and the
more specialized usages in the Upanishads. Soul on
the other hand is a metaphysical term referring to an
entity which supposed to cohabit with the physical body
to form a functioning person. In this view body and soul
are different. In the Abrahamic religions the soul is
supposed to be created by God at the birth (or
conception) of an individual, and this soul has an
eternal existence even after death going to its reward
either in Heaven or Hell. Both meanings of tman exist
in the Upanishads with the empirical physical meaning
sometimes made clear by referring to it as the self-inthe-body (arirtman). However it was usual to attach
tman to any physical or mental function, e.g. the
intelligent soul (vijntman) by which is meant the
power of intelligence, the tman being added purely for
emphasis.
In many Upanishads (e.g. the Kaha Upanisahd) the
tman is said to reside in the cavity of the heart. In this
sense the tman is clearly looked upon as the soul.
Although the tman is said to temporarily leave its
place of residence when the person is in deep sleep, the
final departure occurs at death. Then the tman is said
to leave the cavity of the heart by any one of the
hundred odd nerves that radiate from the heart. Each of
these take the soul to a different destination, but only

40

one channel, that which leads to the top of the head, is

the one that the soul will take to ascend to the realm of
the devas. This view of the tman as soul is the view
that came to be accepted in later Hinduism.
Even in this metaphysical sense the matter is
complicated by identifying two different kinds of soul
the individual soul(s) and the universal soul. One would
expect that logically it is only this universal Soul that
should be equated to Brahman, but this is not clearly
stated, and even the soul which resides in the heart of a
single individual is said to be connected to the universal
or cosmic soul.
In whatever way we interpret the tman it is a
deeply flawed concept.

(iii) Cosmology
Cosmology deals with theories relating to the
structure and the origin of the Universe. Views on both
these aspects are scattered throughout the Upanishads.
The Vedas had a simplified view of the structure of
the universe. It consisted of 3 planes the earth (bhr)
below, the sky (svar) above and the intermediate
regions (bhuvas). The sky contained the sun, moon,
stars, etc. and the intermediate region contained rain,
storms, lightning, etc. All these were deified. Later on
more realms were added even beyond the sky leading
up to the Brahma world. Curiously the Upanishads do
not mention hellish realms, although these too were

41

added in later times. There is mention of the spirit world

of the Gandharvas and similar beings. This cosmology
may be slightly superior to the Biblical cosmology of a
flat earth with a hemispherical vault above it containing
the celestial bodies. We cannot expect a better view of
the universe in that early age.
On another level we have the three fold division
into the world of the gods, the world of the fathers and
the world of humans. This was related to destination of
humans after death as given in the speculations of the
Kausitaki Upanishad and other Upanishads.
On the question of the origin of the Universe the
Vedas (including the Upanishads) believed in creation.
The doctrine of creation which underlies all theistic
religion is most rudimentary in the Vedas,. The
Upanishads provided no improvement. At the start of
the Bihadranyake we read: In the beginning there
was nothing whatsoever in the universe. By Death,
indeed, all this was covered by hunger, for hunger is,
verily, death. Let Me have a mind, was His desire and
He created the mind. Then He moved about, worshiping
Himself. From Him, thus worshiping, water was
produced (2.1.1) and so on. Who the He was is never
explicitly specified but the Creator God most commonly
mentioned is Prajpati although this name does not
occur in the Bihadrayaka in this connection.
The failure of the Upanishads, like other views
before the emergence of the modern view, on the origin
of the universe and life on the planet, indicates that
what it says about other subjects must be subjected to

42

the same degree of suspicion.

(iv) Physiology and Psychology

Physiology relates to bodily features and functions
and psychology to mental aspects of the person. The
Upanishads did not make a sharp distinction between
the two and elements belonging to both were often
grouped in the same list.
On the physiology side we have already mentioned
the importance attached to the heart. In this they were
perpetuating an ancient misunderstanding about the
function of the heart in the human body. [Note 20] They
had no idea of the functioning of the brain. They were
interested in finding the Inner Controller and the
Heart was their choice. But modern physiology has
shown that the heart merely responds to electrical and
chemical signals sent by the brain. Other than their
concern with the heart and the network of veins,
arteries and nerves proceeding form it the Upanishads
show little concern with the physical body.
Of the bodily functions the greatest importance is
attached to breath (pra). Originally this term meant
the entire breathing process. Later on it was restricted
to mean the expiration of the breath, while the inbreath was denoted by apna. The intermediate stage
between the inspriation and the expiration was
terms vyna, sometimes translated as interspiration.
There is an up-breath (udna) mentioned but probably
was another term forapna. This concern with the

43

breath was probably because when breathing stops the

person dies immediately. The other faculties like eating,
speaking, hearing, smelling, touching,, procreating, etc.
are also mentioned but people can have these impaired
and still live. This is a trite observation and does not
justify the importance which is given to breath, even
equating it to Brahman and tman, the supreme
concepts of the Upanishads. [Note 21]
The Upanishadic seers had a good idea of anatomy.
After all they were expert butchers of the animals they
sacrificed and were fully aware of the anatomy of the
animals they dismembered. They would have correctly
surmised that the human anatomy was similar. While
most human organs are inside and the person is not
aware of them this is not the case of the heart.

(v) Karman and Sasra

As is well known most Indian religions and
philosophies accept a version of the doctrine of karma
and reincarnation (or rebirth) [Note 22]. The specifics
relating to this differ in the various traditions
Brahmanical, Jain, Buddhist and Hindu. As such many
people have been searching for the origin of these
ideas. The Vedic eschatalogy thought that a person on
death goes either to the moon or the Sun depending on
how well he observed the sacrifices and made the
oblations to the gods. And the Upanishadic authors can
rightfully stake a claim in this regard.
Karma refers to actions done by individuals. Some

44

see it more narrowly as the action of doing the sacrifice.

The karma theory asserts that actions have
consequences sometimes seen in the present life and
sometimes in a future existence. According as these
consequences are deemed good or bad the
corresponding actions are approved or disapproved.
The evaluation of actions in terms of their being right or
wrong is the concern of ethics. So a theory of karma is
also an ethical theory.
The ethical theory in the Upanishads is weak. The
good actions which bring good results are those which
are in conformity with ritual actions. For householders it
is centered on sacrifice, offering of oblations and
worship of gods. Later on karma was used to denote the
doing of things prescribed by he caste system.
A theory of karma usually posits of the possibility of
reincarnation or rebirth. If a series of re-births or reincarnations is postulated we have the cycle of sasra.
Then the eschatological question arises when and how
sasra ends. Buddhism postulates Nirvna as the end of
sasra. Later Hinduism posits union with Brahm as the
end of sasra. The Upanishadic answer to this question
is not as clear.
There are many instances that Upanishadic seers
posited a theory of reincarnation. We have mentioned
the doctrine of the three births in the Aitreya where the
third birth is really a reincarnation. But it is Yjavalkya
who is considered the true author of the doctrine of
transmigration. In the Bihadranyaka he gives the
famous analogy of the caterpillar: Now as a caterpillar,

45

when it has come to the end of a blade of grass, in

taking the next step draws. itself together towards it,
just so this soul in taking the next step strikes down this
body, dispels its ignorance, and draws itself together.
(4.4.2).
The doctrines of karma and rebirth has left its mark
in all later Indian religion and philosophy although there
are radical differences in the way these are interpreted.

(vi) Knowledge
In the Upanishads great emphasis is given to the
acquisition of knowledge and the elimination of
Ignorance (avidy). The Aitreya calls knowledge the
ultimate Brahman. However what is meant by
knowledge is not what would be considered today as
secular knowledge. It consists of belief in metaphysical
concepts which are accepted without any credible proof.
It is believed that having this kind of knowledge
confers special powers on the person with the
knowledge. The Indian doctrine of the satyakiy states
that the very utterance of a truth has direct
consequences for the benefit of the person uttering it.
6. The Upanishads and Buddhism

In this section we shall explore the relationship

between the Upanishadic theory and Buddhism by
which term we shall mean the Dhamma-Vinaya ascribed
to the Indian sage Gotama (Gautama) popularly known

46

as the Buddha [Note 23].

(a) Some General Considerations
Here we consider matters relating to time, place
and persons which are relevant to establish the
connections between the two systems of thought. It is
generally accepted that the some of the early
Upanishads (including the two most important of them,
the Bihdrayaka and the Chndogya) came before
the Buddha. But unfortunately there is not enough
evidence to date these Upanishads more precisely. It is
generally believed that they were in existence by 600
BCE. Given that the Buddhas Enlightenment has been
placed about 500 BCE [Note 24] this means that the
Upanishadic doctrines were known for at least a century
before the Buddhas time.
With regard to geography there has been some
scholarly interest in finding the areas in which the
Upanishadic doctrines arose. This has some relevance
in establishing links between Upanishad doctrines and
those of Buddhism. While it is generally believed that
the original Vedic hymns were composed in the region
of the Indus basin it is thought that the centre of later
Vedic speculation moved eastwards along the Ganges
basin. It is of course well known that the cradle of
Buddhism was in the middle Ganges basin, particularly
the kingdoms of Maghada and Kosala.
It is believed that the early Upanishads were
composed in the regions Kuru-Pancla and Videha.
These are well to the east of the Indus river which was
the birthplace of the original Vedic hymns and to the

47

west of what was the cradle of Buddhism. So it is quite

possible that the Upanishadic teaching originated in the
area immediately to the West of the region where
Buddhism arose.
With regards to the personalities involved we know
next to nothing of the seers mentioned in the
Upanshads except the names that were given to them.
The Buddhist texts mention the teachers who existed
during the Buddhas time, or immediately prior to it.
The question is whether any of them could be identified
as followers of the Upanishad teaching. There is a
conventional listing of six schools but they were ascetic
(samanas) outside the main Brahmanical shools. He
names of Brahamins who came to dispute with the
Buddha and the arhants are given, but they are not the
seers of the Upanishads. Of course those seers, even if
they existed, would have died by the time of the
Buddha.
We may finally notice the question posed by
scholars whether elements of the Buddhas doctrine is
contained in Upanishadic teaching. These scholars have
advanced the view that either the Upanishads contain
the central ideas of Buddhism or that Buddhism is itself
a development of the Upanishads. Both the Pali texts
and the Upanishads came to the attention of Western
scholars in the nineteenth century and it was natural to
compare them with each other. [Note 25] One of the
early Orientalists Max Mller asserted that The
Upanishads are ... the germs of Buddhism, while
Buddhism is in many respects the doctrine of the
Upanishads carried out to the last consequences...

48

(Sacred Books of the East, XV, p.li). Far from agreeing

with this view it will be shown that Buddhism is in many
respects the opposite of what the authors of the
Upanishads were talking about. If the Upanishads
exerted any influence it was a detrimental one relating
to some minor doctrines which the Buddha seems to
have tolerated. The principal of these is the acceptance
of he existence of extra-human beings like the gods of
the Vedic system and the demons. Only the doctrine of
the cycle of births whose origin has been traced to the
Upanishadic seers seems to be major debt that
Buddhism owes to the Upanishads.
(b) The Buddhas refutation of Brahman and
tman
As we have seen the Upanishadic system was
based on the twin pillars of Brahman and tman. In
some situations these two were declared to be the
same, with the latter term the more commonly used to
denote the combined entity. The Buddha demolished
both these pillars of the Upanishadic system.
The neuter term Brahman does not occur in the Pali
Canon. From this some people have argued that either
that the Buddha was unaware of this usage, or that he
tacitly accepted, or that he could not refute this. None
of this can be accepted. The Buddha was quite aware
that by Brahman those who used this term meant the
Vedic deity Brahm who is credited with all kinds of
feats. So he used the term Mah Brahm to denote
the entity that is referred to in the Upanishads as
Brahman.

49

In the Buddhist texts Mah Brahm is represented

as claiming the following attributes for himself:
"I am Brahm, the Great Brahm, the Supreme
One, the Mighty, the All-seeing, the Ruler, the Lord
of all, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief of all
appointing to each his place, the Ancient of days,
the Father of all that is and will be." (Dgha Nikya,
II, 263).

The Buddha dismisses all these claims of Mah

Brahm as being due to his own delusions brought
about by ignorance. He argues that Mah Brahm is
simply another deva, perhaps with greater karmic force
than the other gods, but nonetheless a deva and
therefore unenlightened and subject to the samsric
process as determined by his karma. In such suttas as
the the Aggaa Sutta the Buddha refutes the claims of
Maha Brahm and shows him to be subject to karmic
law (i.e. cosmic law). Even though long-lived Mah
Brahm will be eliminated in each cycle of inevitable
world dissolution and re-evolution. In the Khevadda
Sutta Mah Brahm is forced to admit to an inquiring
monk that he is unable to answer a question that is
posed to him, and advises the monk to consult the
Buddha. This clearly shows the Brahm acknowledges
the superiority of the Buddha.
With Brahman equated to Mah Brahm, and the
latter reduced to the status of a deva with limited
powers the Buddha goes on to demolish the second
pillar of the Upanishads, i.e the tman doctrine. As we

50

have seen there are several versions of tman

mentioned in the Upanishads the most basic being the
physical body of the persons (the sarrtman). In this
sense the Buddha simply equation the tman to the
rpa component of the empirical person. As such it
could be accepted and it is simply referred to as the
empirical self.
But the Upanishadic notion of a metaphysical
tman residing in the core of the human person, in the
cavity of the heart is totally rejected by the Buddha.
We can refer to this as the soul concept to contrast it
with the empirical person.
One of the cardinal principles of the Buddhas
teaching is the absence of a soul (the anatt doctrine).
This distinguishes Buddhism not only from the Vedic
tradition but also some other non-Vedic philosophies
like Jainism. The Buddha includes anatt as one of the
three characteristics of all Dhammas, the other two
being dukkha (suffering, unsatisfactoriness) and
anicca (impermanence). It is even more important
than its denial of a Creator God to which it is related to.
If we remove tman from the Upanishadic doctrine
nothing worthwhile remains. Even Brahman is validated
by its identification with tman. So even those who
refuse to accept that Mah Brahm as the Buddhas
equivalent to the neuter Brahman of the Upanishads
will find the Buddhas rejection of the tman doctrine as
equivalent to the rejection of Brahman because of the
Upanishadic equation: Brahman = tman. Without
tman there is no Brahman, and the Buddha rejects

51

tman, so he rejects Brahman.

(b) The Evidence from the Suttas

There is no sutta which specifically refers to the
Upanishads. But a number of the Buddhas discourses
refer to the Vedic system. By the three Vedas the
Buddha did not simply mean the three original Vedas
but the whole corpus which came to be attached to the
original Vedas including the later Brhmanas and the
ranyakas (which of course include the Upanishads).
We can now examine some of that evidence.
At the very commencement of the Sutta Piaka in
the Brahmajlas Sutta the Buddha considers 62
systems as unsatisfactory or erroneous. Most of them
are attributed to certain samaas and brhmanas.
Unfortunately it is not possible to tell which school of
samaas or brahmanas propagated each individual
error. This has to be inferred from the doctrines of
different schools as we have them.
The 62 errors could be classified in many ways. 18
relate to the past of the world and/or the soul. Of there
4 are described as eternalist (i.e. both the world and
the soul are eternal), 4 are semi-eternalist (i.e some are
eternal and some not), 4 relate to the origin and size of
the universe, 4 take a skeptical (amarvikkhepik)
position, and 2 relate to causality. The remaining 44 are
doctrines about the future, i.e. to the question of
rebirth. Of these 16 posit conscious post-mortem
survival, 8 of unconscious post-mortem survival (i.e.

52

people cannot recall the previous births), 8 of NeitherConscious-nor-Unconscious Post-Mortem Survival, and
7 of non-survival. The last 5 five relate to ways of
attaining Nibbna .
None of these views seem to fit the Upanishads
perfectly, but some appear to of these views
approximate to the Upanishadic view. Thus the semieternalists are given as those holding that: Brahma,. . .
he made us, and he is permanent, stable, eternal, not
subject to change, the same for ever and ever. But we
who were created by that Brahma, we are
impermanent, unstable, short-lived, fated to fall away,
and we have come to this world. This description may
fit some views expressed in the Upanishads where
Brahman is spoken as a male person responsible for
creation. But it is difficult to find any statement in the
Upanishads that corresponds exactly to the categories
mentioned in the Brahmajla.
There are other discourses specifically on the Vedic
system as well as conversations with Brahmins which
involve their beliefs. We may consider two discourses
representative of this kind of Sutta. One is the Tevijja
Sutta contained in the Long Discourses of the Buddha
and the other is the Caki sutta included in the Middle
Length Discourses.
In the Tevijja sutta (DN I. 13) the Buddha deals
specifically with the three Vedas. The preamble to the
Sutta states that two Brahmins, followers respectively
of Pokkarasdi and Trukkha were disputing as to
whose path (to union with Brahm) [Note 26] was the

53

correct path. They the decide to consult the Buddha

and one of the disputants Vseha mentions several
Brahmin schools ( Addhariy, Tittiriy, Chandok,
Bavharij) [Note 27] and asks the Buddha Are all those
saving paths?.
In his reply the Buddha asks if any of the classical
Vedic teachers had seen Brahm (or the personified
Brahman) and Vaseha is forced to admit that they had
not. This leads the Buddha to give the analogy of the
chain of blind men, each holding on the other, none of
them knowing where they are going. This of course
applies to all kinds of blind beleif, and all Upanishadic
beliefs, especially those about Brahman and tman
were blind beliefs.
In Upanishadic cosmology he moon and the sun are
seen as realms of habitation of gods, and as the
destination of humans who have followed the vedic
rituals. The Buddha uses this veneration of these
celestial objects to ridicule th absurdity of Vedic
worship: The Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas,
who can very well like other, ordinary, folk see the
Moon and the Sun as they pray to, and praise, and
worship them, turning round with clasped hands to the
place whence they rise and where they set are those
Brahmans, versed in the Three Vedas, able to point out
the way to a state of union with the Moon or the Sun,
saying: This is the straight path, this the direct way
which makes for salvation, and leads him, who acts
according to it, to a state of union with the Moon or the
Sun?

54

The Buddha then points out that prayer to the

Vedic deities is as futile as asking the further bank of a
river to come to the opposite side. The Buddha
concludes:
In just the same way, Vseha, do the
Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas omitting
the practice of those qualities which really
make a man a Brahman, and adopting the
practice of those qualities which really make
men non-Brahmans say thus: Indra we call
upon, Soma we call upon, Varua we call upon,
sna we call upon, Pajpati we call upon,
Brahm we call upon, Mahiddhi we call upon,
Yama we call upon! Verily, Vseha, that
those Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas,
but omitting the practice of those qualities
which really make a man a Brahman, and
adopting the practice of those qualities which
really make men non-Brahmansthat they, by
reason of their invoking and praying and
hoping and praising, should, after death and
when the body is dissolved, become united
with Brahm verily such a condition of things
can in no wise be!

The Buddha then concludes his discourse by giving

Vseha the correct path to salvation, and Vseha
becomes a follower of the Buddha.
The Chaki Sutta (Majjhima Nikya No. 95) is a
discourse given to a group of Brahmins headed by

55

Chaki where the Buddha again refutes the Vedic

claims. There is disagreement amongst the brahmins
about the correct path to union with Brahm. They
decide to consult the Buddha. Most of conversation is
between the Buddha and a young brahamin student,
whom the Buddha addresses as Bhradvja. Bhradvja
asks the Buddhas opinion about the brahamin view of
their scriptures: Only this is true, anything else is
wrong.. In his reply the Buddha demonstrates that
even though the Brahmins assert this none of them
know for certain if what their doctrines assert is true or
not. Their belief is based purely on blind faith, and the
Buddha repeats the example of the file of blind men.
The purpose of the discourse is twofold. Firstly to sheds
more light on the conditions set out in the Klma sutta
for acceptance of views, and secondly to consider what
faith (saddh) means in the Buddhas teaching. Our
main purpose here is to examine the vedic beliefs that
the Buddha considers as an example of unacceptable
beliefs.
In the Upanishads we sometimes get sraddh (faith
in the teacher) praised as a virtue. But the Upanishadic
concept of sraddh is different to the Buddhist saddh.
In the brahminical usage sraddh is more akin to blind
faith. In the Buddhist sense saddh can only be
developed in a teacher if certain requisites are satisfied.
Firstly the teacher should be a person of moral
rectitude. the Vmasaka Sutta the Buddha lays down
certain six moral requiements that the teacher should
pass before faith is placed in him. [Note 28] In the Caki
sutta the teaching itself should satisfy certain tests if
faith is to be placed in the teacher propounding it

56

however worthy he may be in terms of the tests posed

in the Vasaka sutta.
The Caki Sutta restates the Buddhas fundamental
disagreement with the Vedic-Upanishadic theory:
How then, Bhradvja, the ancient
brahmin seers, the creators of the hymns, the
composers of the hymns, whose ancient
hymns that were formerly chanted, uttered,
and compiled, the brahmins nowadays still
chant and repeat, repeating what was spoken
and reciting what was recited that is,
Ahaka, Vmaka, Vmadeva, Vessmitta,
Yamataggi, Angirasa, Bhradvja, Vaseha,
Kassapa, and Bhagu did even these ancient
brahmin seers say thus: We know this, we see
this: only this is true, anything else is wrong?
No, Master Gotama.,
So, Bhradvja, it seems that among the
brahmins there is not even a single brahmin
who says thus: I know this, I see this: only this
is true, anything else is wrong.And among the
brahmins there is not even a single teacher or
a single teachers teacher back to the seventh
generation of teachers, who says thus: I know
this, I see this: only this is true, anything else
is wrong.And the ancient brahmin seers, the
creators of the hymns, the composers of the
hymns ... even these ancient brahmin seers
did not say thus: We know this, we see this:
only
this
is
true,
anything
else
is

57

wrong.Suppose there were a file of blind men

each in touch with the next: the first one does
not see, the middle one does not see, and the
last one does not see. So too, Bhradvja, in
regard to their statement the brahmins seem
to be like a file of blind men: the first one does
not see, the middle one does not see, and the
last one does not see. What do you think,
Bhradvja, that being so, does not the faith of
the brahmins turn out to be groundless?
There are several other suttas which criticise the
Vedic theory along the lines of the two discourses
considered above.

(c) Burrowings from the Vedic theory?

It must not be thought that there were no aspects
of the Vedic-Upanishadic theory that is found in
Buddhism. But these generally relate to less important
doctrines, or the doctrines even though they are
considered basic to the Dhamma could be considered
not relevant to the issue of human salvation.
The first of these is the place given to supernatural
entities and planes of existence in the Buddhist
scheme. The Buddha asserts that gods exist, even
though the notion of a creator God (issaro or Mah
Brahm) is denied. There are suttas in which the
Buddha discourses with devas. One entire Suttanta, the
Mahgovinda sutta (Digha Nikya No. 19) is given to a
Gandabba. This is a past life of the Buddha and it

58

affirms the existence of realms like the Heaven of the

Thirty-Three gods which, as we saw, is a burrowing from
the Vedas. It is also said to indicate a transition from
the earlier gods of the three Vedas to the more
sophisticated speculations of the Brahmanas and
Aranyakas. Deva worlds are postulated in which the
inhabitants have extra-ordinarily long lifetimes.
But even more important than the devas is the
doctrine of sasra and the associated notions of kamma
and re-birth. We saw that this doctrine originated with
Yjavalkya the well-known Upanishadic seer. But of
course there are differences in the Upanishadic and the
Buddhist versions. Yjavalkya postulated the Vedic
taman, but Buddhism denies such an entity. This poses
the hoary question: if there is no soul what then is
reborn? The usual answer is that it is not the soul but
the karmic energy contained in the Sakhras that at
death activates a new life elsewhere. Whatever the
validity of this argument in popular interpretation rebirth is seen as if the individual keeps on being reborn
until Nibbna is reached. As regards the karma which
drives this process of sasra there is a difference
between the Upanishads and the Buddhas teaching. In
Vedic doctrine karma is the right performance of duty
as stipulated in the revealed scriptures (ta). The most
important of these is the observance of caste law. In
Buddhism however karma is essentially the observance
of ethical precepts like non-killing.
Another important difference between the
Upanishadic theory of Transmigration and the Buddhist
theory of re-birth is that the Upanishads refer to a place

59

of existence called the plane of the fathers (in addition

to the plane of the devas). Buddhism knows not plane
of the fathers, but on various deva realms, hellish
planes, and the human plane.
The Buddhist notion of Nirvana (nibbna) has been
compared to Brahman. As we have seen the latter for
all practical purposes is identifiable with the god
Brahm while nibbna is a state of being which the fully
liberated person reaches. If it can be assigned a gender
it has to be neuter. The similarity is that both terms
cannot be defined in positive terms. The Upanishadic
seers often said that Brahman is not this, not that
(neti neti). In Buddhism too Nirvana is often described
as not being things that are readily perceptible. Thus
the fully liberated person, who has reached the state of
nibbna is said neither to exist or not to exist. Thus his
existence after is neither affirmed not denied. While this
may be compatible with one the logical categories of
ancient Indian thinking it is not one that is accepted in
modern logical theory.
There are other brahmanical notions which the
Buddha seems to have accepted. Thus the Buddha is
said to have mastered the meditation techniques of his
mentors during the period of his search mainly Alra
Klma and Uddaka Rmaputta. While we cannot
exactly state what theory these samanas subscribed it
is most likely one of the brhmanical theories current at
the time. The importance given to breath even as a
preliminary stage in Buddhist meditation may be an
echo of the central position that breath (pra) was

60

given in the Upanishadic system.

7. The Upanishads and Rationalism

Another angle from which the Upanishads could be

considered is that of rationalism and materialism. We
have seen that Buddhism adopted a basically rational
approach, but it still did tolerate certain elements of
Vedic thinking. In particular this included a belief in the
existence of devs, though not of a supreme creator
God. While the term deva has many meanings,
including being an exalted person like a king, it is
generally thought to be supernatural beings living in
non-terrestrial realms. Empirical proof of such beings
cannot be made. Also Buddhism asserts the doctrine of
rebirth, which is similar to the reincarnation theory
advanced by the Upanishadic seers. A more through
critique of the Upanishadic system would involve a
rejection of these elements as well.
Strict rationalist and materialist views did exist at
the time when the Upanishads were composed. They
were generally called doctrines of nihilism
(nstikavd). [Note 29] The most prominent of these
were attributed to a thinker of that age called Crvka
of whom virtually nothing is known [Note 30]. He is said
to have composed a work called Brihaspati Stra, but
this has been lost. There are at least two sources when
verses allegedly from this treatise have been published.
One is by Jayari Bhaa [Note 31], the other by
Madhavacharya. [Note 32] Whether these works give
authentic statements of Crvka may be questioned.
But more reliable are the views of these schools given
by their opponents be they Brahmanical, Buddhist or

61

Jaina. Where all these traditions ascribe the same view

to the Crvkas it could be assumed to have been a
view they held. It is on this kind of basis that some
reconstruction of the Crvka position could be made.
But we still would not know if the original Crvka texts
made explicit reference to the Upanishads.
The school that has come to be known as the
Lokyata is also equated to the Crvkas. The first
mention of the Lokyata is in Kautilyas Arthasastra
where it is considered from the epistemological point of
view. Later it was given ideological content and seen as
a doctrine emphasizing an extreme position of
materialism. Those who upheld these views were called
Lokyatikas.
The Crvka-Lokyatika position is said to assert a
number of propositions. These could be considered to
see if they are asserted or denied in the Upanshads,
and also in Buddhism and other non-Vedic traditions.
The principal of these propositions are:
1. Only the Material World Exists. This denies that a
non-material component exists. Clearly this is
contrary to Upanishadic belief. If we take this to
mean that the material world is real it would be
denied by some of the later Upanishads which
espouse the my doctrine that all is illusion.
2. Pleasure and Pain. This asserts the hedonic principle
that only pleasure counts even if it is accompanied
by a degree of pain. Some Upanishads that
espouse the doctrine brahman is bliss (nanda)
seem to uphold the hedonic principle, but later

62

Upanishds which emphasize austerity see a virtue

on self motification.
3. Ritual as a Livelihood. This denounces the old
Brahmanical practice of earning their livelihood by
performing the various Vedic rituals.
4. Suffering exists only in this world. This is the denial
of a post-mortem Hell and that the only suffering a
person suffers from is the mundane suffering
caused by the travails of existence.
5. Intelligence is a human attribute and resides in the
Body. This proposition may not conflict with some
Upanishadic propositions relating to learning, etc.
6. Such methods as logic, testimony or analogy do not
provide a valid ground for inference. These are
similar to the ten grounds identified by the Buddha
as not providing as a valid ground for correct
inference. There is no such recognition in the
Upanishads.
7. Nature as spontaneous and independent. This is
similar to the Skya doctrine which is a later
development from the Upanishads, but it contrary
to the general principles of Upanishadic philosophy.
The above principles of the Crvta-Lokayta
would be consonant with many of the propositions of
modern rationalism and atheism. But they appear to be
late developments and we cannot be sure if the original
Crkas and Lokaytiks held them. Little is known of
their social views. They may have rejected the social

63

divisions of the Vedic system such as the caste system,

but in the absence of textual evidence from their
writings we cannot be sure of this.
8. Conclusion

By way of conclusion we may compare the

Upanishads with Western philosophy and religion, both
the classical theistic Christianity and the more reformed
Christianity resulting from Enlightenment thinking such
as deism. It is easy to see some resemblance between
the Lord (Bhagavat, I) of the theistic Upanishads and
the monotheistic God of Christianity. Like these
Upanishads Christianity too admits of a plurality of
supernatural beings (the other elements of the Trinity,
the Angels and Archangels).
It is, however, not for this reason that the
Upanishads have been given exaggerated importance
by Western scholars. It was Schopenhauer who saw in
the Upanishads he encountered in an imperfect vision
of Kants re-evaluation of Christianity. Kant had rejected
the ontological explanation of the traditional Christian
God and it was easy to see in the imprecise and
confused conception of Brahman something akin to the
Godhead of Kant. In fact the notion of Brahman was
closer to the God of faith-based Christianity than the
deity in the Deistic religion.
We have seen that the central concept of Brahman
does not represent an impersonal ground of being as
the neuter designation of the term seems to indicate.
Even the early Upanishadic seers could not put away
the notion of the old Vedic gods. Of course when we

64

come to the later Upanishads, all of which are postBuddhistic even the pretext of a neutral ground of being
is given up, or at least only lip-service is paid to it. In
Upanisads like the , the vetasvatara, the Prana etc.
we have the notion of a creator god (vara) very much
in the manner of the Abrahamic religions. Thus a great
endeavour, which was seen as a revolution in Indian
philosophy, simply ended up as tame faith-based
religion of God.

NOTES
1It has been claimed that the Vedas were the earliest
religious documents of the Indo-aryan people. Next
would probably be the religious documents of the
Semitic people which culminated in the Old Testam
ent.
2The caste differences were set up at the very
creation of mankind in the mythical sacrifice of the
primordial man: The Brahman was his mouth, of both
his arms was the Rjanya made. His thighs became the
Vaiya, from his feet the dra was produced. (g
Veda 10.90.12).
3Names like Yjavalka the famous seer of the
Bihadrayaka are well known, sometimes even deities
like Prajpati and Rudra are mentioned as authors. See
summary of the principal Upanishads in Section 4 of
this Essay. The author of principal parts of the g Veda
is given as Aghamarsaa. This kind of information

65

usually comes from the Commentators.

4See section 7 of this Essay for information on
them.
5 Later a fourth Veda, the Arthava, was added but
it will not be considered here as this compilation is
clearly post Buddhist.
6ta was a term denoting the natural order, ( which
also included the human) . The physical basis of ta was
the universe (as it was then known), while the social
aspect included the caste system and the religious
ritual.
6The heaven of the 33 gods is also mentioned in
Buddhist writings. This indicates that the supernatural
elements of Buddhism like the existence of gods,
asuras, pretas, etc. and realms where they exist, were
simply taken over from Vedic beliefs and do not
constitute an original element of the Buddha-dhamma.
The Upanishadic seer Yjavalkya also affirms that
there are 33 gods and he lists them as 8 Vasus, 11
Rudras, 12 Adityas, Indra and Prajpati.
7While the central act of the Horse sacrifice was
the killing of the horse the ritual involved contained
many other unsavory aspects. The most notorious of
these was the role assigned to the wife of the sacrificer,
usually the queen if the sacrificer was the king . This
involved some degree of ritual cohabitation between
the animal that was to be sacrificed and the queen. The
materialist critics who opposed Vedic practices

66

described this practice as obscene.

8There are some passages in the Upanishads which
condemn the old Vedic sacrifices, and supporters of the
Upanishads point to them. But these were the
exception. The general rule was to be vague about was
sacrifices, but sacrifice is considered a virtue by the
Upanishadic seers.
9Sankara (788-820 CE) is a commentator on 10
early Upanishads. He was also known as a persecutor of
Buddhism in its declining years in India, although others
accuse of reading Buddhist ideas into his interpretation
of he Upanishads.
10Paul Deussen, The Philosophy of the Upanishads,
originally published in German
11It will be seen that here a katriya refutes a
brahmana. Indeed this Upanishad categorically states
that the Katriyas are superior to the Brahmins (cf.
1.4.11). This is another peculiarity of the Upanishads
when compared to the Brahmanas.
12Another version of this conversation is also
reported later in this Upanishad in Chapter 4.
13Translated by Swami Madvananda. Other
translations give different readings of this passage, but
they are all equally incomprehensible.
14This is the Hirayagarbha theory which is
mentioned in different contexts throughout the
Upanishads. The idea dates from the g Veda (X.121.1)

67

where it is the first born out of the primodal creation.

Sometimes Hirayagarba us taken as the
personification of Brahman as Brahm. This will be
taken up later in our consideration of Brahman as
Brahm by the Buddha.
15As translated by Hume, Thirteen Principal
Upanishads, p.263.
16That is, within the self there are various selves,
but the true knower must advance to the highest self.
17The Bhagavad Gt has become the central text
of modern Hinduism. But the date of its composition is
not certain. Most scholarly opinion date it as being
composed after the Buddha (perhaps in the third
Century BCE), and indeed it has been seen as the
Brahmanical answer to Buddhism. But some people
date it much earlier than that, perhaps even predating
the Buddha. If this is true it could be contemporaneous
with the composition of some of the theistic
Upanishads.
18Thus J. Brereton considers Brahman as providing
an integrative vision by identifying a single
comprehensive and fundamental principle which shapes
the world (in his article "The Upanishads"
in Approaches to the Asian Classics, Columbia
University Press, 1990). The use of the word principle
can give the impression that it represents some
impersonal force like the force of Gravity. But in the
Upanishads this principle turns out to be nothing
more than the conventional God!

68

19The father God of Christianity is not usually

given a personal name even though some sects use the
term Jehovah, a corruption of Yahweh, as the name of
the alleged father of Jesus.
20See the present writers essay The Mind and the
Heart in Buddhism and Other Religions available on
the Internet athttp://www.vgweb.org/bsq/bsqtr18.htm
21Meditation on the breath is a standard part of
Upanishadic meditation. Buddhist meditation also
begins with meditation on breath, and is probably
copied from the Upanishadic practice.
22The terms reincarnation and rebirth are taken
as synonyms. But Buddhists in particular make a
distinction between reincarnation which assumes the
existence of a Soul or Self, and rebirth which is possible
even without a Soul or tman. We shall consider the
two terms as interchangeable, except when considering
the Buddhist doctrine specifically.
23The earliest texts of Buddhism are those
preserved in the Pali Canon. This comprises three
sections: (1) Dhamma dealing with doctrine, (2) Vinaya
dealing with monastic disciples, and (3) Abhidhamma
deling with some advanced doctrines. The third section
is generally considered to be a later addition. The Pali
terminology will be used throughout with the Sanskrit
equivalent will be given in parentheses if necessary.
24This is based on the presumed dates for Asoka
which in turn are based on Greek and Sri Lankan texts.
More recently it has been argued that the Buddha lived

69

at least a century after the earlier accepted dates. If so

it is possible that more of the Upanishads would have
been composed before the Buddhas time.
25The first Western philosopher to praise the
Upanishads was Schopenhauer. He had access only to a
Latin translation of a Persian translation of the Kaha
Upanishad. He considered it as an oriental form of
Kantian philososphy. Buddhism came t the attention of
the West somewhat later through the efforts of RysDavids and the Pali Text Society of London.
26Union with the Godhead was how liberation
(moksha) was described in later Hinduism. In the
Upanishads we have constant reference to gaining
knowledge of Brahman which could be taken as the
equivalent of union with Brahm of later Hinduism.
27Some of the schools mentioned here may refer
to Upanishadic schools like the Taittiriya and the
Chndogya. In his reply the Buddha also mentions
several Brahmin teachers (Ahaka, Vmaka, Vadeva,
Vessmitta, Yamataggi, Yamataggi, Agirasa,
Bhradvja, Vaseha, Kassapa, Bhagu) who ressemble
some of the seers mentioned in the Brhmasas and
the Upanishads.
28These are (1) Are there any defilements in the
Teacher? (2) Are his attainments of long standing? (3) Is he
convinced of these attainments?(4) Is sensuality, greed or fear evident
in him? (5) On what grounds does the Teacher claim that he does not
indulge in sensuality because greed is destroyed and not through
fear? (6) Is he rightfully enlightened?

70

29The term nstikavd us sometimes used to

denote any system which denies the Vedas. Thus even
Buddhism and Jainism were described by this term as
they did not endorse the notion of a supreme Creator
God who presides over the destiny of people. But these
systems were not completely nihilist ic and therefore
cannot be described as nstikavd if that term is used
to denote a completely nihilist system of belief, as we
shall take it to mean.
30Some have speculated that no real person
named C rvka existed, and consider the name has
been taken from a minor character in the Mahabhrata
who is regarded as an evil person.
31In a work titled Tattvopaplavasimha which has been
dated to the 8th Century CE, Though presented as an original Crvka text
it is mainly concerned with epistemology rather than doctrine. It is
sceptical of a completely reliable source of knowledge. It also develops a
strong critic of supernatural beings. The text was only discovered in the
twentieth century.

32In his Sarva-darsana-sangraha a work dated to

the 13th or 14th Century CE. The first chapter of this
work was devoted to Crvka. This work is much more
doctrinal than that of Bhaa. Thus the author attributes
to Crvka the view: The Agnihotra, the three Vedas,
the ascetic's three staves, and smearing oneself with
ashes Brihaspati says, these are but means of
livelihood for those who have no manliness nor sens

71
MN 98
PTS: M ii 196

Vseha Sutta: To the Brahmin Vasettha

translated from the Pali by

Ven. Sister Uppalavanna

2014

- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samm-sambuddhassa Thus I heard. At one time the Blessed One lived in the forest of Icchnakala near the
village Icchnakala. At that time many well-known brahmin householders lived in
Icchnakala, such as the brahmins Chanki, Trukkha, Pokkharasti, Jnussoni,
Todeyya and other well-known brahmin householders.
To the two young brahmins Vseha and Bhradvja while walking and wandering
for exercise, this dispute arose. "Friend, how does one become a brahmin". The
young man Bhradvja said "If some one is unsoiled and undisturbed, on both the
mother's and father's side as far back as seven generations he becomes a
brahmin." Young Vseha said, "If some one becomes virtuous and endowed with
good conduct, he becomes a brahmin." Neither of them could convince the other on
this dispute, and young Vseha said to the young man Bhradvja, "Friend,
Bhradvja, there is the recluse Gotama the son of the Skyas, gone forth from the
Skya clan, his fame is spread in this manner. He is worthy, all knowing, endowed
with knowledge and conduct, well gone, knower of the worlds, incomparable tamer
of those to be tamed, Teacher of gods and men, enlightened and blessed. Let us
approach him and ask this question, and as he explains it, let us both accept it."
Young Bhradvja agreed to the young man Vseha's suggestion. Then the two
young men approached the Blessed One, exchanged friendly greetings, sat on a
side and the young man Vseha addressed the Blessed One in verses:

"The two of us accept and acknowledge that we are learned in the three Vedas,
I am a pupil of Pokkharasti, and this young man of Trukkha.
We both can recite the three Vedas completely,
In explaining the meanings of words and grammar, we are like our teachers.
O! Gotama, we have a dispute on birth.
Bhradvja says 'by birth a Brahmin is made'
And I say 'by actions a Brahmin is made. '
Each of us could not convince the other
We came to ask about it from the well-known all enlightned one
When the moon has gone beyond waning, people encounter it with clasped hands,

72
Likewise Gotama is worshipped with clasped hands by the world.
The world is enlightened, we ask Gotama, does one become a brahmin by birth or
else by actions?
We do not know this, enlighten us so that we may know the brahmin."

The Blessed One said:

"Vaseha, I will tell you step by step how it happens,

The classification of living things in this and other births.
Look at the grass and trees, although they are not aware,
This and the other have attributes peculiar to their births.
So also insects, like grasshoppers and ants
They have attributes peculiar to their births.
Look at the animals small and large
They have attributes peculiar to their births.
Look at the serpents with long backs going on their bellies,
They have attributes peculiar to their births.
Look at the fish too, who find food in the water.
They have attributes peculiar to their births.
Look at the birds flying through the air.
They have attributes peculiar to their births.
Although these have various attributes, at birth,
In humans various attributes are not evident at birth.
They are not in the hair, head, ears or eyes
Not in the mouth, nose, lips or eye-lashes
Not in the neck, flanks, stomach or back,
Not in the buttocks, chest, pudendum, nor in the sexual intercourse.
Not in the hands, feet, fingers or nails, nor in the knees and calves,
Not in the hue or voice, by which to know their birth.
In the individual bodies of humans, these are not evident,
They are designated by the activities of humans.

73

Among humans whoever makes a livelihood by looking after cattle,

Vseha, know him as a farmer, not as a brahmin.
Among humans whoever makes a livelihood doing a craft,
Vseha, know him as a craftsman, not as a brahmin.
Among humans whoever makes a livelihood by trading,
Vseha, know him as a merchant, not as a brahmin.
Among humans whoever makes a livelihood working for others,
Vseha, know him as a workman, not a brahmin.
Among humans whoever makes a livelihood out of what is not given,
Vseha, know he is a robber, not a brahmin.
Among humans whoever makes a livelihood serving the king,
Vseha, know he is a soldier, not a brahmin.
Among humans whoever makes a livelihood by advising the king,
Vseha, know he is the adviser, not a brahmin.
Among humans whoever makes a livelihood enjoying the wealth of the village and
country,
Vssehs, know he is the king, not a brahmin.
One born of a brahmin woman's womb is not a brahmin,
By address, he is sir, he has defilements,
When he has no defilements and no seizings, I call him a brahmin.
When all bonds are cut, if one is not worried,
Bonds, cut and unyoked, I call him a brahmin.
Cutting the straps of interest and the present fetters,
When the obstacles removed, is enlightened, I call him a brahmin.
If one endures scoldings and floggings without an angry mind,
Develops patience and a lot of it. I callhim a brahmin.
Not angry, austere, virtuous not haughty
With taming he bears the last body, I call him a brahmin.
Like water that does not stay on the lotus leaf, the mustard seed that slips from the
tip of the arrow,
When not soiled in sensuality, I call him a brahmin.

74
He understands unpleasantness, having diminished the self view here itself.
When the load bandoned is unyoked, I call him a brahmin.
With deep wisdom becomes clever in the path and non-path,
When attained to the highest truth, I call him a brahmin.
Not soiled by householders or by those gone forth,
When he becomes homeless with few desires, I call him a brahmin.
Giving up punishing living things infirm or firm,
When he does not kill or hurt anyone, I call him a brahmin.
Among enemies without enmity, among those hurting the self, extinguished,
When among the seizing without a seizing, I call him a brahmin.
Like mustard seeds on the tip of a sword, if his greed and hate,
Measuring and malice fall away, I call him a brahmin.
Instructs without harsh words, bringing out the truth
When he does not curse anybody, I call him a brahmin.
Long or short, small or large, agreeable or disagreeable,
When he does not take anything not given, I call him a brahmin.
Is without desires for this world and the next,
When without desires is unyoked, I call him a brahmin.
When he has no roosting places, knowing what should and should not be done,
And has taken a dive in the deathless, I call him a brahmin.
Overcoming both bonds of merit and demerit
Made pure, without grief, and not attached. Then I call him a brahmin.
Like the extremely pure moon undisturbed and without stains,
When the interest 'to be' is destroyed, I call him a brahmin.
Overcoming this difficult path of deluded existence, concentrates,
Is fearless, doubts overcome, is extinguished without seizings, I call him a Brahmin.
Giving up sensuality, one goes forth as a homeless
When his sensuous thoughts are destroyed, I call him a brahmin.
Giving up craving, one goes forth as a homeless.
When his greedy thoughts are destroyed, I call him a brahmin.
Giving up the human yoke, overcomes the heavenly yoke,

75
When he is unyoked, I call him a brahmin.
Giving up attachment and aversion is cooled and without seizings,
When the hero wins over the whole world, I call him a brahmin.
Seeing the fading of beings and also their arising
Is unsoiled, well gone and enlightened, I call him a brahmin.
His movements [1] are not known by gods heavenly musicians or humans,
When desires destroyed, he becomes worthy, I call him a brahmin.
Has no defiling things in the past, afterwards or in the middle,
When not defiled and not holding I call him a brahmin.
The noble bull, the heroic great sage, the fearless winner,
The bather, the enlightened one, I call him a brahmin.
Knowing earlier births, and seeing heavenly and hellish existences,
Comes to the destruction of birth, I call him a brahmin.
The usual way of the world is to be planned about name and clan,
But accumulated things meet coincidently, at the right time.
Ignorantly entangled in views for a long time,
The not knowing tell us, that by birth a brahmin is born.
By birth a brahmin is not born, by birth a non-brahmin is not born,
By actions a brahmin is born, by actions a non-brahmin is born.
By actions a farmer is born, by actions a craftsman is born,
By actions a merchant is born, by actions a workman is born.
By actions a robber is born, by actions a soldier is born,
By actions an adviser is born, by actions a king is born.
Thus the wise see action as it really is,
Seeing it dependently arise becomes clever in the results of actions.
By actions the world rolls on, by actions the populace roll on,
Beings bound to actions, go on, like the linch pin of the wheel.
By austerities, leading the holy life, restraint and taming,
By these a brahmin is born, that is the most noble brahmin.
Endowed with the three knowledges, appeased and rebirth destroyed
Vseha know it as recognizing Brahm and Sakha."

76
When this was said the two young men Vseha and Bhradvja said thus to the
Blessed One: "Now we know good Gotama. It seems as though something
overturned is re-installed, something covered is made manifest, As though the path
is told to someone who has lost his way. It seems as though an oil lamp is lighted for
the darkness, for those who have eyes to see forms. In various ways good Gotama
has explained the Teaching. Now I take refuge in good Gotama, in the Teaching and
the Community of bhikkhus. Good Gotama, remember us as disciples who have
taken refuge from today until life lasts."

Notes
1.
Does not know the movements (gati na jnanti) means that nobody
knows what he thinks. In other words he does not think like a god, a
heavenly musician or a human, so his thoughts or movements cannot be
traced.

Tevijja sutta

stute students may recognize two English words in the title of this sutta. Pali te is three
(or threefold), whereas vijja clearly is vision or, more properly knowledge or wisdom.
Thus, Walshe translates this as the sutta of the threefold knowledge, the opposite
ofavijja, ignorance or not knowing (no vision), but with an ironic twist, as we shall see.
Kosala we have encountered before.
All I know about Manasakata is that it is the name of a village south of the river
Achiravati, now known as the river Rapti. The name means mind-begotten
(Pali manasa + kata). Sravasti (Savatthi) is also located on the bank of this river,
located in mid-southern Nepal. The Buddha stayed at a mango grove on the bank of this
river.
A number of Brahmans were staying in the town, described as rich and famous. One of
these, Todeyya, is the father of Subha, who would later ask Ananda to explain to him the

77
things that the Buddha praised and dispraised after the parinirvana in the Subha Sutta,
which we have already discussed.
Two young Brahmans, Vasettha and Bharadvaja by name, began to argue between
themselves while walking along the road about right and wrong paths leading to Union
with Brahma. Vasettha advocated the philosophy of the Brahman Pokkharasati, while
Bharadvaja defended Tarukkha.
Pokkharasati is the Brahman in the Ambattha Sutta (DN 3), whose student insults the
Buddha. Concerning Tarukkha I have not able to find out anything. In any case, the two
youths could not agree on whose teacher was right, each believing that their own
teacher alone was the true one.
They agree to take the question to the Buddha, who is in the vicinity, and to abide by his
decision as arbitrator.
The two complain to the Buddha about how many different paths there are, in the
course of which they name five Brahmanic schools: the Adhariyans, Tittiriyans,
Chandokans, Chandavans, and the Brahmacariyans (or Bavharijans). Walshe describes
the first four as Vedic priests who relied on liturgy, sacrifice, or chant, contrasted with
some ascetics who practised chastity. We can see the word chanter in Chandoka
(Chandoga) and chastity in Brahmacariya. Tittiriya (Taittiriya) means pupils of the
Taittiriyans. A better Sanskritist than I might be in a position to cast further light on the
meaning of these words.
Rather than choose one, the Buddha asks Vasettha whether any of these Brahmans,
their ancestors, or even the rishis, the original makers and expounders of the mantras,
have actually ever seen Brahma face to face? Compare the Biblical tradition of seeing
God face to face. The Buddha names ten such rishis. This list also occurs in the Vinaya
Pitaka (Mahavagga, I.245). In the latter, the Buddha declares that the true Veda was
revealed to the rishis, but subsequently distorted by priestcraft. This is the view
of the rishis to which I am coming also through my own study of the suttas.
Clearly, the Buddha had great respect for the ancient Indian tradition and its
antecedents but regarded Brahmanism as a decadent remnant of the original spiritual
tradition. Concerning Atthaka, Vamaka, and Vamadeva I have not been able to find out
anything useful, but the rest are great rishis, including six of the Seven Sages

78
(Saptarishi) of Ursa Major, consisting of seven bright stars that point to the Pole Star or
Axis Mundi. Interestingly, the Buddhas parinirvana occurred just about one Ursa Major
cycle (2,700 years) after the traditional date of the advent of the Kali Yuga, which would
put his passing on in 402 BCE
The Seven Sages authored different parts of the Vedas as well as other things.

Atthaka (Atthako): ?

Vamaka (Vamako): ?

Vamadeva (Vamadevo): ?

Vessamitta (Vessamitto, Vishvamitra): Formerly a king, Vessamitta is

venerated as a great and powerful rishi of ancient India, and the discoverer of the
Gayatri mantra. The Gayatri mantra is a Vedic Sanskrit verse from the Rigveda
(3.62.10). It is associated with Savitr, and is therefore called the Savitr mantra. Literally
impeller, rouser, vivifier, Savitr is the son of Aditi, the mother of the gods and the twelve
signs of the zodiac. Savitr is also associated with the vivifying influence of Surya, the
sun, just before sunrise.
[O bhr bhuva sva]
tt savitr vre(i)ya
bhrgo devsya dhmahi
dhyo y na prachodyt
Vivekananda (1915) translates this as We meditate on the glory of that Being who has
produced this universe; may He enlighten our minds.

Yamataggi (Jamadagni, Jamdagni): One of the Seven Sages and a

descendant of Bhrigu.

Angirasa (Angiras, Angiraso): Another of the Seven Sages, the reputed father
of the ancestors of humanity, he is also credited as being a direct ancestor of the

79
Buddha. He is said to have been born out of the divine intellect of Brahma. Brahma
assigned to him the task of caring for the welfare of Brahmas creation.

Bharadvaja* (Bharadwaja, Bharadwajo): A descendent of Angirasa and one of

the Seven Sages, renowned for his scholarship and meditative accomplishments,
including egolessness. Reputed author of the Ayurveda.

Vasettha* (Vasistha, Vassettho): Another of the Seven Sages, he is supposed

to have authored a book on the Vedic system of electional astrology.

Kassapa (Kassapo): Another of the Seven Sages.

Bhagu (Bhrigu): Another of the Seven Sages, inventor of predictive astrology.

Krishna compares Bhagu to the opulence of God (Bhagavad Gita).
* Presumably the coincidence of name means nothing more than that the Brahmans
were named after those rishis.
Six of these rishis belong to the Seven Sages (Saptarishi), but it is impossible to say
who the missing rishi is, since different lists exist, none of which corresponds to the
Buddhist list exactly. There are at least eleven possible candidates, therefore, one of
whom, interestingly, is named Gautama.
Walshe describes these as the ten rishi authors of the Vedic mantras.
The rishis, whose number included both men and women, were ecstatic seers whose
utterance inspired the Vedas, which were then transmitted orally from generation to
generation. The rishis are enlightened householders, married with descendants. When
recited aloud, their verses invoke the devas. It is reasonable to suppose that the hymns
of the Rigveda were inspired by the devas when the rishis entered into ecstatic trance
states. A similar cult is associated with the ayahuasqueros of Peru. The rishis
understood the art of travelling in a mental body, which involved the creation of an
imaginal mind-body and its projection into higher dimensions of reality, with which they
conversed with the devas and manifested their wisdom, power, and beauty in the form of
song. Vivekananda called them seers of thought.

80
Even these divinely inspired seers had not seen Brahma face to face. Therefore, the
Buddha declares, the entire Vedic Brahmanic conceit is ill founded, because it is
speculative, not based on actual experience. The Buddha declares the Brahmans to be
like the blind leading the blind: The talk of these Brahmans learned in the Three Vedas
turns out to be laughable, mere words empty and vain.
Vasettha agrees with the Buddha that the Brahmans see the sun and the moon just like
everyone else and that, although they may pray, sing praises to, and worship the sun
and the moon, this does not mean that they know the path to union with the sun and the
moon. We learned in the previous sutta that even the Brahmas could not predict when,
how, or where Brahma would appear, therefore neither did the rishis and nor the
Brahmans know this, nor do they know the way to Union with Brahma.
The Buddha compares the Brahmans, rather ludicrously, to a young man searching for
the perfect girl, without knowing when, how, or where he will find her or even what she
looks like; a man building a staircase going to nowhere; or a man trying to cross a
raging river by beckoning to the other side.
Moreover, he says, the Brahmans neglect what they should do and do what they should
not do. This criticism of the Brahmans for self-indulgence and general laxity is frequently
levelled against them by the Buddha. The Buddha also rejects the method of deva
invocation (including prayer) to attain Union with Brahma. Thus, the Buddha rejects the
fundamental premise of religious theism, as we have discussed before. He says that the
Brahmans are enslaved by sense desires, which are bonds and fetters. In addition, they
are hindered by sensuality, ill will, sloth and torpor, worry and flurry, and doubt,
encumbered by wives, wealth, hatred, ill will, impurity, and lack of discipline.
By comparison, the Buddha notes that Brahma is unencumbered by wives and wealth,
hatred, ill will, impurity, and lack of discipline. If one does not possess the qualities of
Brahma at death, then how can he be reborn as Brahma? The law of karma forbids it.
Therefore their threefold knowledge is called the threefold desert, the threefold
wilderness, the threefold destruction.
The Brahman Vasetthas rather unlikely response is that he has heard that the Buddha
knows the way to Union with Brahma. The assertion that the Buddha has this reputation
itself is interesting. When Vasettha tells the Buddha this, the Buddha says:

81

What do you think, Vasettha? Suppose there were a man

here born and brought up in Manasakata, and somebody
who had come from Manasakata and had missed the road
should ask him the way. Would that man, born and bred in
Manaskata, be in a state of confusion or perplexity?
Vasettha answers that he would not.

And why not? Because such a man would know all the
paths.
The implication is that the Buddha is the one who knows all the paths. Elsewhere the
Buddha compares the dharma to an overgrown path leading to the abandoned ruins of a
long forgotten city in the midst of an ancient forest perhaps a mind-begotten city?
Moreover, the Buddha knows more than the Brahman speculators do. He himself has
travelled this path and knows the path of practice that leads to Union with Brahma.
Finally, the Buddha makes his point. The way to Union with Brahma, the Buddha says,
consists in the attainment of three things:

the practice of morality;

first jhana; and

the practice of metta meditation, the contemplation on loving kindness.

The Buddha describes this meditation thus:

With his heart filled with loving kindness, he dwells

suffusing one quarter, the second, third, the fourth. Thus
he dwells suffusing the whole world, upwards, downwards,

82

across, everywhere, always with a heart filled with loving

kindness, abundant, unbounded, without hate or ill-will.
Then with his heart filled with compassion, with
sympathetic joy, with equanimity he dwells suffusing one
quarter the second, the third, the fourth. Thus he dwells
suffusing the whole world, upward, downwards, across,
everywhere, always with a heart filled with equanimity,
abundant, unbounded, without hate or ill will.
In this doctrine of meditation on compassion leading to rebirth in the kingdom of the
heaven of the Brahmas, the Buddha is setting forth a teaching that would be echoed
four hundred years later by Yeshua (Jesus), the great Jewish bodhisattva of Galilee,
along with many other elements of the dharma. Nevertheless, rebirth in the Brahma
worlds is not the goal of dharma, which aims much higher. Indeed, dharma aims beyond
anything that is able to be conceptualized, though one must reach that point of
transcendent realization through the cultivation of wisdom.
Interestingly, the Buddha adds this easily overlooked detail: he leaves nothing
untouched, nothing unaffected in the sensuous sphere. This, Vasettha, is the way to
Union with Brahma. This point corresponds to the Buddhas emphasis on mindfulness
of the body, which we discussed in a previous talk.
The Buddha invites Vasettha to compare the qualities of Brahma with the qualities of the
Buddhist monastic. Vasettha agrees that they possess identical qualities Thus, the
Buddha implies, it is the monastic who attains Union with Brahma.
Vasettha and Bharadvaja take refuge as lay householders in Gotama, the Dharma, and
the Sangha.
This sutta is often interpreted as though the Buddha did not really mean it, that the
wholesutta is an elaborate ruse to trick Vasettha and Bharadvaja into the right path. I
think this conclusion implies a lack of respect and even a shady nature that I do not

83
believe that the Buddha had. Rather, the Buddha is revealing to Vasettha and
Bharadvaja the inner meaning of their own premises. The Buddha is also revealing a
way of religion suited to the Brahmans and lay householders, whereas the Buddha
intimates that the monastics possess an even more subtle and profound interpretation
that reveals the ancient and archaic heart of the dharma, long lost by and forgotten to
the Brahmans whom he addresses and berates for their superficial character, not
because he is opposed to Brahmanism as such, but rather because he is opposed to
the orthodoxy of exotericism that had come to dominate the religion of the late Vedic
period, characterized as it was by ritualism and dogmatism. Against this, the Buddha
posits the way of the rishis, whose religion was grounded in direct knowledge based on
immediate ecstatic experience.

SUMMARY OF THE MORALITIES

The Tevijja Sutta is the last sutta of the first division of the Digha Nikaya, entitled the
Moralities. Those of you who have been following along in the Walshe translation will
know that this collection of thirteen suttas is highly repetitive, referring again and again
to self-restraint, the jhanas, the insights, the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold
Path, and nirvana from various angles. In addition to this exploration, we have gleaned
many insights into the nature of the Buddhadharma. To conclude this talk I will briefly
summarize what we have learned in the course of discussing the first thirteen suttas.
The first thing we learn in the first sutta of the Suttapitaka is that the moral rules and
regulations may impress people but are in themselves not sufficient or adequate to
describe the Tathagata or to attain awakening or emancipation itself. Ethics and morality
are elementary and inferior. Thus, the Suttapitaka begins with an extensive exploration
of what the dharma is not. In particular, the dharma is not ethics or speculation. We are
also introduced to the centrality of rationality in the spiritual quest. All speculative views
are rejected because dualistic rationality cannot possibly penetrate the mystery of
dharma, which is transcendent, trans-rational, and trans-dual. Realization is only
attainable by direct intuitive experience. Therefore, any view that can be conceptualized
as a world is a trap that leads to rebirth in just that sort of world. True awakening is
beyond all views and beyond rationality itself, and is therefore an uncharacterizable
mystery.

84
In the second sutta we learn what are the fruits of the monastic life, which include four
meditative accomplishments (the jhanas), culminating in perfect insight; five psychic
powers, culminating in the Divine Eye whereby one perceives the karma of others; and,
finally, perfect mindfulness, awakening, and emancipation. In addition, we learn of the
centrality of the mindfulness of the body in Buddhist practice.
In the third sutta, we learn that caste and race are irrelevant.
In the fourth sutta, we begin to see that the Buddhas dharma corresponds to the
ancient Indian religion of which contemporary Brahmanism is merely a degenerate
remnant, and that the true Brahman is the spiritual practitioner based on his or her
spiritual qualities alone.
In the fifth sutta, we learn how the Buddha reinterpreted Brahmanic ritualism in ethical
and spiritual terms, and the Buddhas social and political philosophy, which today we
would call social democracy.
In the sixth sutta, we see how Buddhist spirituality was practised and experienced,
including the reality of altered states of consciousness and psychic powers. The Buddha
also sets out the path of the arhant and alludes to the mind stream (santana) and the
intuition that the body as sentience.
In the eighth sutta, the Buddha declares that the practices of asceticism are superficial,
mechanical observances that can be performed by anyone, but that true asceticism is
an asceticism of the mind, as well as ten criteria that establish the truth of the Buddhas
speech.
In the ninth sutta, the Buddha asserts the absoluteness of the law of karma. Nothing
that occurs is causeless, or fails to have its effect. Further, the Buddha sets out the
whole process of mindfulness (beginning with controlled perception and leading through
stages to the limit of perception and cessation). He teaches that no worlds are excluded
from suffering, and therefore the attainment of emancipation transcends all worldly
conceptions, including heaven. He reveals that there are three kinds of acquired self
gross, mind-made, and formless corresponding to the three worlds of sensuality, form,
and formlessness.

85
In the tenth sutta, the Buddha discusses the Threefold Classification of the Noble
Eightfold Path and reiterates that morality is inadequate, that more needs to be done to
attain awakening.
In the eleventh sutta, the Buddha declares that there are three types of miracle
psychic powers, telepathy, and the miracle of dharma teaching or instruction, which is
the greatest miracle of all, because it confers emancipation. The first category of miracle
includes such powers as self-multiplication, invisibility, passing through matter, etc.
Although these powers are only exceptionally witnessed in this world, interestingly, there
are three contexts in which they are experienced: dreams, the psychedelic experience,
and the UFO phenomenon. It stretches credulity to suggest that this association is
accidental.The miracle of teaching relates to the power of truth. We also see that
meditative concentration (samadhi) can be used to gain access to the deva worlds to
answer spiritual and metaphysical questions, and that God is fake! Finally, trans-dual
consciousness, where material forms find no footing, is characterized by signlessness,
boundlessness, and all-luminosity, similar to the Cabalistic trinity of Ein, Ein
Sof, and Ein Sof Or.
In the twelfth sutta, the Buddha rejects the philosophy of egoism and advocates a
philosophy of social responsibility based on altruism.
Finally, in the thirteenth sutta, the Buddha declares that the true Veda was revealed by
the rishis male and female shamans, married householders, whose spirituality was
grounded in ecstatic experience, unlike the Brahmans who no longer have any
connection to experiential spirituality, but rely on liturgy, sacrifice, and chant. Elsewhere
we have discussed how the spirituality of the rishis was based on the soma sacrifice,
which originally consisted in consuming a psychedelic sacrament, not unlike
the ayahuasca cult of Peru. The Buddha also reveals the way to Union with Brahma,
which consists of self-control, jhana, and meditation on loving kindness (metta) directed
toward the whole sensual creation and all created beings, and declares that only he who
is like Brahma will attain to rebirth in the Brahma worlds. This is, however, not the goal
of Buddhism.
Next week we begin the second division of the Digha Nikaya, called the Great Division,
consisting of ten suttas. These suttas are longer than the suttas of the Moralities,
consisting of sixteen pages on average, compared to nine pages.

86

THE MIDDLE LENGTH DISCOURSES OF

THE BUDDHA - SELECTIONS
95. Cank Sutta: With Cank
[164] 1. Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was
wandering in the Kosalan country with a large Sangha of bhikkhus,
and eventually he arrived at a Kosalan brahmin village named
Opasda. There the Blessed One stayed in the Gods Grove, the
Sla-tree Grove to the north of Opasda.
2. Now on that occasion the brahmin Cank was ruling over
Opasda, a crown property abounding in living beings, rich in
grasslands, woodlands, waterways, and grain, a royal endowment, a
sacred grant given to him by King Pasenadi of Kosala.
3. The brahmin householders of Opasda heard: The recluse
Gotama (as Sutta 91, 3) Now it is good see such arahants.
4. Then the brahmin householders of Opasda set forth from
Opasda in groups and bands and headed northwards to the Gods
Grove, the Sla-tree Grove.
5. Now on that occasion the brahmin Cank had retired to the
upper storey of his palace for his midday rest. Then he saw the
brahmin householders of Opasda setting forth from Opasda in
groups and bands and heading northwards to the Gods Grove, the
Sla-tree Grove. When he saw them, he asked his minister: Good
minister, why are the brahmin householders of Opasda setting
forth from Opasda in groups and bands and heading northwards to
the Gods Grove, the Sla-tree Grove?
6. Sir, there is the recluse Gotama, the son of the Sakyans who
went forth from a Sakyan clan, who has been wandering in the

87

Kosalan country (as Sutta 91, 3) They are going to see that
Master Gotama.
Then, good minister, go to the brahmin householders of Opasda
and tell them: Sirs, the brahmin Cank says this: Please wait, sirs.
The brahmin Cank will also go to see the recluse Gotama.
Yes, sir, the minister replied, [165] and he went to the brahmin
householders of Opasda and gave them the message.
7. Now on that occasion five hundred brahmins from various
states were staying at Opasda for some business or other. They
heard: The brahmin Cank, it is said, is going to see the recluse
Gotama. Then they went to the brahmin Cank and asked him: Sir,
is it true that you are going to see the recluse Gotama?
So it is, sirs. I am going to see the recluse Gotama.
8. Sir, do not go to see the recluse Gotama. It is not proper,
Master Cank, for you to go to see the recluse Gotama; rather, it is
proper for the recluse Gotama to come to see you. For you, sir, are
well born on both sides, of pure maternal and paternal descent
seven generations back, unassailable and impeccable in respect of
birth. Since that is so, Master Cank, it is not proper for you to go to
see the recluse Gotama; rather, it is proper for the recluse Gotama
to come to see you. You, sir, are rich, with great wealth and great
possessions. You, sir, are a master of the Three Vedas with their
vocabularies, liturgy, phonology, and etymology, and the histories
as a fifth; skilled in philology and grammar, you are fully versed in
natural philosophy and in the marks of a Great Man. You, sir, are
handsome, comely, and graceful, possessing supreme beauty of
complexion, with sublime beauty and sublime presence, remarkable
to behold. You, sir, are virtuous, mature in virtue, possessing mature

88

virtue. You, sir, are a good speaker with a good delivery; [166] you
speak words that are courteous, distinct, flawless, and communicate
the meaning. You, sir, teach the teachers of many, and you teach
the recitation of the hymns to three hundred brahmin students. You,
sir, are honoured, respected, revered, venerated, and esteemed by
King Pasenadi of Kosala. You, sir, are honoured, respected, revered,
venerated, and esteemed by the brahmin Pokkharasti. You, sir, rule
over Opasda, a crown property abounding in living beings a
sacred grant given to you by King Pasenadi of Kosala. Since this is
so, Master Cank, it is not proper for you to go to see the recluse
Gotama; rather, it is proper for the recluse Gotama to come to see
you.
9. When this was said, the brahmin Cank told those brahmins:
Now, sirs, hear from me why it is proper for me to go to see Master
Gotama, and why it is not proper for Master Gotama to come to see
me. Sirs, the recluse Gotama is well born on both sides, of pure
maternal and paternal descent seven generations back, unassailable
and impeccable in respect of birth. Since this is so, sirs, it is not
proper for Master Gotama to come to see me; rather, it is proper for
me to go to see Master Gotama. Sirs, the recluse Gotama went forth
abandoning much gold and bullion stored away in vaults and
depositories. Sirs, the recluse Gotama went forth from the home life
into homelessness while still young, a black-haired young man
endowed with the blessing of youth, in the prime of life. Sirs, the
recluse Gotama shaved off his hair and beard, put on the yellow
robe, and went forth from the home life into homelessness though
his mother and father wished otherwise and wept with tearful faces.
Sirs, the recluse Gotama is handsome, comely, and graceful,

89

possessing supreme beauty of complexion, [167] with sublime

beauty and sublime presence, remarkable to behold. Sirs, the
recluse Gotama is virtuous, with noble virtue, with wholesome
virtue, possessing wholesome virtue. Sirs, the recluse Gotama is a
good speaker with a good delivery; he speaks words that are
courteous, distinct, flawless, and communicate the meaning. Sirs,
the recluse Gotama is a teacher of the teachers of many. Sirs, the
recluse Gotama is free from sensual lust and without personal
vanity. Sirs, the recluse Gotama holds the doctrine of the moral
efficacy of action, the doctrine of the moral efficacy of deeds; he
does not seek any harm for the line of brahmins. Sirs, the recluse
Gotama went forth from an aristocratic family, from one of the
original noble families. Sirs, the recluse Gotama went forth from a
rich family, from a family of great wealth and great possessions.
Sirs, people come from remote kingdoms and remote districts to
question the recluse Gotama. Sirs, many thousands of deities have
gone for refuge for life to the recluse Gotama. Sirs, a good report of
the recluse Gotama has been spread to this effect: That Blessed
One is accomplished, fully enlightened, perfect in true knowledge
and conduct, sublime, knower of worlds, incomparable leader of
persons to be tamed, teacher of gods and humans, enlightened,
blessed. Sirs, the recluse Gotama possesses the thirty-two marks of
a Great Man. Sirs, King Seniya Bimbisra of Magadha and his wife
and children have gone for refuge for life to the recluse Gotama.
Sirs, King Pasenadi of Kosala and his wife and children have gone for
refuge for life to the recluse Gotama. Sirs, the brahmin Pokkharasti
and his wife and children have gone for refuge for life to the recluse
Gotama. Sirs, the recluse Gotama has arrived at Opasda and is

90

living at Opasda in the Gods Grove, the Sla-tree Grove to the

north of Opasda. Now any recluses or brahmins that come to our
town are our guests, and guests should be honoured, respected,
revered, and venerated by us. Since the recluse Gotama has arrived
at Opasda, he is our guest, and as our guest should be honoured,
respected, revered, and venerated by us. [168] Since this is so, sirs,
it is not proper for Master Gotama to come to see me; rather, it is
proper for me to go to see Master Gotama.
Sirs, this much is the praise of Master Gotama that I have
learned, but the praise of Master Gotama is not limited to that, for
the praise of Master Gotama is immeasurable. Since Master Gotama
possesses each one of these factors, it is not proper for him to come
to see me; rather, it is proper for me to go to see Master Gotama.
Therefore, sirs, let all of us go to see the recluse Gotama.
10. Then the brahmin Cank, together with a large company of
brahmins, went to the Blessed One and exchanged greetings with
him. When this courteous and amiable talk was finished, he sat
down at one side.
11. Now on that occasion the Blessed One was seated finishing
some amiable talk with some very senior brahmins. At the time,
sitting in the assembly, was a brahmin student named Kpahika.
Young, shaven-headed, sixteen years old, he was a master of the
Three Vedas with their vocabularies, liturgy, phonology, and
etymology, and the histories as a fifth; skilled in philology and
grammar, he was fully versed in natural philosophy and in the marks
of a Great Man. While the very senior brahmins were conversing
with the Blessed One, he often broke in and interrupted their talk.
Then the Blessed One rebuked the brahmin student Kpahika thus:

91

Let not the venerable Bhradvja break in and interrupt the talk of
the very senior brahmins while they are conversing. Let the
venerable Bhradvja wait until the talk is finished.
When this was said, the brahmin Cank said to the Blessed One:
Let not Master Gotama rebuke the brahmin student Kpahika. The
brahmin student Kpahika is a clansman, he is very learned, he has
a good delivery, he is wise; he is capable of taking part in this
discussion with Master Gotama.
12. Then the Blessed One thought: Surely, [169] since the
brahmins honour him thus, the brahmin student Kpahika must be
accomplished in the scriptures of the Three Vedas.
Then the brahmin student Kpahika thought: When the recluse
Gotama catches my eye, I shall ask him a question.
Then, knowing with his own mind the thought in the brahmin
student Kpahikas mind, the Blessed One turned his eye towards
him. Then the brahmin student Kpahika thought: The recluse
Gotama has turned towards me. Suppose I ask him a question.
Then he said to the Blessed One: Master Gotama, in regard to the
ancient brahmanic hymns that have come down through oral
transmission and in the scriptural collections, the brahmins come to
the definite conclusion: Only this is true, anything else is wrong.
What does Master Gotama say about this?
13. How then, Bhradvja, among the brahmins is there even a
single brahmin who says thus: I know this, I see this: only this is
true, anything else is wrong?No, Master Gotama.
How then, Bhradvja, among the brahmins is there even a
single teacher or a single teachers teacher back to the seventh
generation of teachers who says thus: I know this, I see this: only

92

this is true, anything else is wrong?No, Master Gotama.

How then, Bhradvja, the ancient brahmin seers, the creators of
the hymns, the composers of the hymns, whose ancient hymns that
were formerly chanted, uttered, and compiled, the brahmins
nowadays still chant and repeat, repeating what was spoken and
reciting what was recitedthat is, Ahaka, Vmaka, Vmadeva,
Vessmitta, Yamataggi, Angirasa, Bhradvja, Vseha, Kassapa,
and Bhagudid even these ancient brahmin seers say thus: We
know this, we see this: only this is true, anything else is wrong?
[170] No, Master Gotama.
So, Bhradvja, it seems that among the brahmins there is not
even a single brahmin who says thus: I know this, I see this: only
this is true, anything else is wrong. And among the brahmins there
is not even a single teacher or a single teachers teacher back to the
seventh generation of teachers, who says thus: I know this, I see
this: only this is true, anything else is wrong. And the ancient
brahmin seers, the creators of the hymns, the composers of the
hymns even these ancient brahmin seers did not say thus: We
know this, we see this: only this is true, anything else is wrong.
Suppose there were a file of blind men each in touch with the next:
the first one does not see, the middle one does not see, and the last
one does not see. So too, Bhradvja, in regard to their statement
the brahmins seem to be like a file of blind men: the first one does
not see, the middle one does not see, and the last one does not see.
What do you think, Bhradvja, that being so, does not the faith of
the brahmins turn out to be groundless?
14. The brahmins honour this not only out of faith, Master
Gotama. They also honour it as oral tradition.

93

Bhradvja, first you took your stand on faith, now you speak of
oral tradition. There are five things, Bhradvja, that may turn out in
two different ways here and now. What five? Faith, approval, oral
tradition, reasoned cogitation, and reflective acceptance of a view.
These five things may turn out in two different ways here and now.
Now something may be fully accepted out of faith, yet it may be
empty, hollow, and false; but something else may not be fully
accepted out of faith, yet it may be factual, true, and unmistaken.
Again, [171] something may be fully approved of well transmitted
well cogitated well reflected upon, yet it may be empty, hollow,
and false; but something else may not be well reflected upon, yet it
may be factual, true, and unmistaken. [Under these conditions] it is
not proper for a wise man who preserves truth to come to the
definite conclusion: Only this is true, anything else is wrong.
15. But, Master Gotama, in what way is there the preservation of
truth? How does one preserve truth? We ask Master Gotama about
the preservation of truth.
If a person has faith, Bhradvja, he preserves truth when he
says: My faith is thus; but he does not yet come to the definite
conclusion: Only this is true, anything else is wrong. In this way,
Bhradvja, there is the preservation of truth; in this way he
preserves truth; in this way we describe the preservation of truth.
But as yet there is no discovery of truth.
If a person approves of something if he receives an oral
tradition if he [reaches a conclusion based on] reasoned
cogitation if he gains a reflective acceptance of a view, he
preserves truth when he says: My reflective acceptance of a view is
thus; but he does not yet come to the definite conclusion: Only this

94

is true, anything else is wrong. In this way too, Bhradvja, there is

the preservation of truth; in this way he preserves truth; in this way
we describe the preservation of truth. But as yet there is no
discovery of truth.
16. In that way, Master Gotama, there is the preservation of
truth; in that way one preserves truth; in that way we recognise the
preservation of truth. But in what way, Master Gotama, is there the
discovery of truth? In what way does one discover truth? We ask
Master Gotama about the discovery of truth.
17. Here, Bhradvja, a bhikkhu may be living in dependence on
some village or town. Then a householder or a householders son
goes to him and investigates him in regard to three kinds of states:
[172] in regard to states based on greed, in regard to states based
on hate, and in regard to states based on delusion: Are there in this
venerable one any states based on greed such that, with his mind
obsessed by those states, while not knowing he might say, I know,
or while not seeing he might say, I see, or he might urge others to
act in a way that would lead to their harm and suffering for a long
time? As he investigates him he comes to know: There are no such
states based on greed in this venerable one. The bodily behaviour
and the verbal behaviour of this venerable one are not those of one
affected by greed. And the Dhamma that this venerable one teaches
is profound, hard to see and hard to understand, peaceful and
sublime, unattainable by mere reasoning, subtle, to be experienced
by the wise. This Dhamma cannot easily be taught by one affected
by greed.
18. When he has investigated him and has seen that he is
purified from states based on greed, he next investigates him in

95

regard to states based on hate: Are there in this venerable one any
states based on hate such that, with his mind obsessed by those
states he might urge others to act in a way that would lead to
their harm and suffering for a long time? As he investigates him, he
comes to know: There are no such states based on hate in this
venerable one. The bodily behaviour and the verbal behaviour of
this venerable one are not those of one affected by hate. And the
Dhamma that this venerable one teaches is profound to be
experienced by the wise. This Dhamma cannot easily be taught by
one affected by hate.
19. When he has investigated him and has seen that he is
purified from states based on hate, [173] he next investigates him in
regard to states based on delusion: Are there in this venerable one
any states based on delusion such that, with his mind obsessed by
those states he might urge others to act in a way that would lead
to their harm and suffering for a long time? As he investigates him,
he comes to know: There are no such states based on delusion in
this venerable one. The bodily behaviour and the verbal behaviour
of this venerable one are not those of one affected by delusion. And
the Dhamma that this venerable one teaches is profound to be
experienced by the wise. This Dhamma cannot easily be taught by
one affected by delusion.
20. When he has investigated him and has seen that he is
purified from states based on delusion, then he places faith in him;
filled with faith he visits him and pays respect to him; having paid
respect to him, he gives ear; when he gives ear, he hears the
Dhamma; having heard the Dhamma, he memorises it and
examines the meaning of the teachings he has memorised; when he

96

examines their meaning, he gains a reflective acceptance of those

teachings; when he has gained a reflective acceptance of those
teachings, zeal springs up; when zeal has sprung up, he applies his
will; having applied his will, he scrutinises; having scrutinised, he
strives; resolutely striving, he realises with the body the supreme
truth and sees it by penetrating it with wisdom. In this way,
Bhradvja, there is the discovery of truth; in this way one discovers
truth; in this way we describe the discovery of truth. But as yet
there is no final arrival at truth.
21. In that way, Master Gotama, there is the discovery of truth;
in that way one discovers truth; in that way we recognise the
discovery of truth. But in what way, Master Gotama, is there the
final arrival at truth? In what way does one finally arrive at truth? We
ask Master Gotama about the final arrival at truth. [174]
The final arrival at truth, Bhradvja, lies in the repetition,
development, and cultivation of those same things. In this way,
Bhradvja, there is the final arrival at truth; in this way one finally
arrives at truth; in this way we describe the final arrival at truth.
22. In that way, Master Gotama, there is the final arrival at truth;
in that way one finally arrives at truth; in that way we recognise the
final arrival at truth. But what, Master Gotama, is most helpful for
the final arrival at truth? We ask Master Gotama about the thing
most helpful for the final arrival at truth.
Striving is most helpful for the final arrival at truth, Bhradvja. If
one does not strive, one will not finally arrive at truth; but because
one strives, one does finally arrive at truth. That is why striving is
most helpful for the final arrival at truth.
23. But what, Master Gotama, is most helpful for striving? We

97

ask Master Gotama about the thing most helpful for striving.
Scrutiny is most helpful for striving, Bhradvja. If one does not
scrutinise, one will not strive; but because one scrutinises, one
strives. That is why scrutiny is most helpful for striving.
24. But what, Master Gotama, is most helpful for scrutiny? We
ask Master Gotama about the thing most helpful for scrutiny.
Application of the will is most helpful for scrutiny, Bhradvja. If
one does not apply ones will, one will not scrutinise; but because
one applies ones will, one scrutinises. That is why application of the
will is most helpful for scrutiny.
25. But what, Master Gotama, is most helpful for application of
the will? We ask the Master Gotama about the thing most helpful for
application of the will.
Zeal is most helpful for application of the will, Bhradvja. If one
does not arouse zeal, one will not apply ones will; but because one
arouses zeal, one applies ones will. That is why zeal is most helpful
for application of the will.
26. But what, Master Gotama, is most helpful for zeal? [175] We
ask Master Gotama about the thing most helpful for zeal.
A reflective acceptance of the teachings is most helpful for zeal,
Bhradvja. If one does not gain a reflective acceptance of the
teachings, zeal will not spring up; but because one gains a reflective
acceptance of the teachings, zeal springs up. That is why a
reflective acceptance of the teachings is most helpful for zeal.
27. But what, Master Gotama, is most helpful for a reflective
acceptance of the teachings? We ask Master Gotama about the
thing most helpful for a reflective acceptance of the teachings.
Examination of the meaning is most helpful for a reflective

98

acceptance of the teachings, Bhradvja. If one does not examine

their meaning, one will not gain a reflective acceptance of the
teachings; but because one examines their meaning, one gains a
reflective acceptance of the teachings. That is why examination of
the meaning is most helpful for a reflective acceptance of the
teachings.
28. But what, Master Gotama, is most helpful for examination of
the meaning? We ask Master Gotama about the thing most helpful
for examination of meaning.
Memorising the teachings is most helpful for examining the
meaning, Bhradvja. If one does not memorise a teaching, one will
not examine its meaning; but because one memorises a teaching,
one examines its meaning.
29. But what, Master Gotama, is most helpful for memorising the
teachings? We ask Master Gotama about the thing most helpful for
memorising the teachings.
Hearing the Dhamma is most helpful for memorising the
teachings, Bhradvja. If one does not hear the Dhamma, one will
not memorise the teachings; but because one hears the Dhamma,
one memorises the teachings. That is why hearing the Dhamma is
most helpful for memorising the teachings.
30. But what, Master Gotama, is most helpful for hearing the
Dhamma? We ask Master Gotama about the thing most helpful for
hearing the Dhamma.
Giving ear is most helpful for hearing the Dhamma, Bhradvja.
[176] If one does not give ear, one will not hear the Dhamma; but
because one gives ear, one hears the Dhamma. That is why giving
ear is most helpful for hearing the Dhamma.

99

31. But what, Master Gotama, is most helpful for giving ear? We
ask Master Gotama about the thing most helpful for giving ear.
Paying respect is most helpful for giving ear, Bhradvja. If one
does not pay respect, one will not give ear; but because one pays
respect, one gives ear. That is why paying respect is most helpful for
giving ear.
32. But what, Master Gotama, is most helpful for paying respect?
We ask Master Gotama about the thing most helpful for paying
respect.
Visiting is most helpful for paying respect, Bhradvja. If one
does not visit [a teacher], one will not pay respect to him; but
because one visits [a teacher], one pays respect to him. That is why
visiting is most helpful for paying respect.
33. But what, Master Gotama, is most helpful for visiting? We ask
Master Gotama about the thing most helpful for visiting.
Faith is most helpful for visiting, Bhradvja. If faith [in a
teacher] does not arise, one will not visit him; but because faith [in a
teacher] arises, one visits him. That is why faith is most helpful for
visiting.
34. We asked Master Gotama about the preservation of truth,
and Master Gotama answered about the preservation of truth; we
approve of and accept that answer, and so we are satisfied. We
asked Master Gotama about the discovery of truth, and Master
Gotama answered about the discovery of truth; we approve of and
accept that answer, and so we are satisfied. We asked Master
Gotama about the final arrival at truth, and Master Gotama
answered about the final arrival at truth; we approve of and accept
that answer, and so we are satisfied. [177] We asked Master Gotama

100

about the thing most helpful for the final arrival at truth, and Master
Gotama answered about the thing most helpful for the final arrival
at truth; we approve of and accept that answer, and so we are
satisfied. Whatever we asked Master Gotama about, that he has
answered us; we approve of and accept that answer, and so we are
satisfied. Formerly, Master Gotama, we used to think: Who are
these bald-pated recluses, these swarthy menial offspring of the
Kinsmans feet, that they would understand the Dhamma? But
Master Gotama has indeed inspired in me love for recluses,
confidence in recluses, reverence for recluses.
35. Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent, Master Gotama!
Master Gotama has made the Dhamma clear in many ways, as
though he were turning upright what had been overthrown,
revealing what was hidden, showing the way to one who was lost, or
holding up a lamp in the dark for those with eyesight to see forms. I
go to Master Gotama for refuge and to the Dhamma and to the
Sangha of bhikkhus. From today let Master Gotama remember me
as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge for life.
How to cite this document:
Bhikkhu Bodhi, The Middle Length Discourses of the
Buddha (Wisdom Publications, 2009)