Indian Antiquary Vol 62

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 222

210
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
NOVEMBER, 1933
There is a passage in the Ânandavalli of the Taittiriya Up., viz., its sixth anuváka and beginning of the seventh, which so strikingly approaches the view I have taken above of the two triplets that I cannot help reproducing it here in full : asann era sa bhavati asad brahmeti veda cet asli brahmeti ced veda santam enam iato vidur iti || (comp. Isa 12.13). (tasyaisa eva sarira átma) (interpolation). athậto 'nupraśnah (a “subsidiary problem," see above, p. 209) | utávidvân (i.e., as one without consciousness) amum lokam pretya kaécana gacchali áho vidvin (as a conscious being) amum lokam pretya kaécit samainuta u 112) 80 'kâmayata bahu syam prajá yeyeti sa tapas taptvá idam sarvam asrjata yad idam kimca (comp. Isa la-b) tat srstvå tad evanu prâvisat (comp. Isa la : Isavasyam) | tad anu pravidya sac ca tyac cábharat (ie., both prapasca and prapañcâbhâva, nature and the supernatural, not merely one of them ; comp. Isa 13) niruktam câniruktam ca nilayanam cânilayanam ca vijñanam cavijñanam ca (consciousness and unconsciousness=ordinary and transcendent consciousness; comp. iśå 10) satyam cânstam ca (explanation follows) | satyam abhavat (i.e. :) yad idam kimca (viz., the prapanca; soe above) tat satyam -(empirical reality) ity acaksate (and, consequently, anstam=asat=the supernatural) tad apy eşa śloko bhavati asad vi idam agra dsit, tato vai sad ajáyata (i.e. : sambhava from asambhava, the supernatural being the non-existent from the worldly point of view) , otc.25)
It now remains to be seen whether in the Kânva text the different position of the triplets may not be an indication of their having from the start been understood there in a different way. One thing, I believe, is certain, viz., that here not the same sort of logical sequence (confirmed by Taitt, Up.) as in the Madhyandina text oan be established. With the Mâdhyandinas both triplets belong to metaphysics; with the Kanvas the second (on sambhúti, etc.), whatever it may mean therę, 26 can also only belong to this province, but the first may well for them have always had an ethical rather than metaphysical bearing. For, the very fact that the vidya-avidya triplet stands first here seems to exclude from it a meaning of these terms which cannot (as it can in the Mâdhyandina text) be derived or guessed from the preceding verses. Here, then, vidya and avidya were in all likelihood understood in a less uncommon sense which might even have come in vogue already in the Madhyandina school as an optional explanation. For, it was well-nigh inevitable that the triplet came to be referred to "knowledge" and "ignorance," or para vidya and aparå vidya, or karman, respectively, and so it is, indeed, understood in all commentaries preserved to us (with the sole exception of Balakrşnadasa's, so far as I know) in spite of the difficulty arising from anyad in st, 10 for which in this case some other word than brahma must be supplied.
This view of the triplet can be substantiated by several Upanişads. Kathaka Up. speaks of vidya and avidya as " widely different” (II, 4) and understands by vidya that “wisdom" (prajñana, II, 24), i.e., atmavidya, which cannot be gained by tarka (II, 9), pravacana, medha, and bahuórula (II, 23); and it calls avidyd the ignorance of the sensualist
38 It is not possible here to understand vidvdn and aviduin in the ordinary sense, because we have every reason to assume that at the time of Taitt. Up. the necessity of jñana for moka was no longer ques. tioned by any body, the problem being only whether karman too was uecessary, and how long. Moreover the context shows that vijñanam (line 11) can only mean consciousness, as in sloka 2 (quotation!) of Taitt. Up. II, 5, the parallelism of which with verse 3 of our triplet is evident.
26 It is hardly possible to make out the age of this section in relation to Iba Up. I am inclined to believe that these anuvâkas are earlier than Iba Up.(though not, perhaps, as a part of Taitt Up.), but Dr. Belvalkar classifies them (Taitt. Up. II, 6-8) as a late interpolation in the Anandavalli, which, as a whole, he is probably right in regarding as posterior to 1så Up. (Hist. of Ind. Phil., vol. II, pp. 98 and 135).
38 Possibly it meant the same with them, originally, as with the Madhyandinas ; but see the commen. taries. How enigmatic the whole Upanipad had become also to the Madhyandinas is shown by Mahidhara's constant alternative explanations. I do not propose to discuss here the various views about the triplet. Not one of them gives complete satisfaction. Mehidhara, e.g., starts with whe seemingly excellent idea of understanding asambháti as & denial of reincarnation (which, by the way, does not exclude the belief in a continuance after death), but then finds himself compelled to explain sambhali as the atman!