Aitareyopanishad Bhashya - 1

From History of the Dvaita School fo Vedanta - By Dr.BNK Sharma

This runs to 1500 granthas. The term "Aitareya Upanishad" is generally restricted to that portion of the A, A. beginning with "atmA vA..." (ii,4,1) and running up to ii,7. The second and third aranyakas togather are known as "buhwRuchka brAhmaNa" or "mahaItarEyOpanishad". The third book has its own title of "samhitOpanishad".As commented upon by Anandagiri and as at present available, Samkara's commentary covers only the portion of ii,4-6. Till recently, Madhvas's procedure in having commented on the whole of the ii and iii AraNyakas was deemed a departure. But the evidence of mss and the testimony of Sayana, show that like Madhwa, Samkara too had commented on the whole of Mahaitareya. The Madhva textual tradition, in this respect also, is endorsed by the Advaitic commentator Upanishad Brahma Yogi, who commentary has been published by Adyar Library.

The Aitareya is Madhva's favorite Upanishad. Much of the Upanishad, however when literally interpreted, appears to be grotesque, unintelligeble and bizarre.Madhva's mystic and estoric explanation of the text in terms of the highest Brahman and its worship and meditation, through all its immanent aspects, should be deemed a revolution in Upanisadic interpretation. The intimate connection of this Upanishad with the RK Samhitam in which mysticism and symbolism play no insignificant part, also lends weight to Madhva's new line of explanation, There is no dount also that the general trend of the text favors some kind of an allegorical explanation of sacrifice. THe aim of ii, 1,3 is to enable men to acquire concentration of thought by meditating on the accessories of sacrifice. This section deals with the allegorical significance of the Uktha(hymns) also called Niskevalya Sastra, three sets of 80 tristichs in the Gayatri, Brhati and USnik metres, prescribed for recitation at the Mahavrata ceremony, on the twenty-fourth day of Gavamayana Sattra. The second part comprises chapters 4-6 and enlarges on the doctrine of the Atman. The iii Aranyaka is taken up with the theories of word-combination and permutation with mystic meaning of various forms of Samhita text, its vowels, consonants etc.

Madhva interprets the whole Upanishad in a mystic and "Vaisnavite Sense", on the basis of "EtaM hyEva bahvRucA mahatyukthE mImAMsantE"...(A.A. iii,2,3).

The Uktha is identified with the Brahman : 'utthApanAdukthanAmA sa Eva pruthivIsthitaH' The fivefold hymn (paMcavidhaM uktham) in ii, 3,1 is explained as the five forms of VishNu, NarayaNa, SamkarshaNa, pradyumna and aniruddha. The meditation on the Samhita text and its constituent parts (Ait.iii) is similarly dealt with. There is bound to be considerable difficulty in working out the details of such an interpretation. Madhva is alive to these difficulties. Such esoteric interpretations involve on his part a good deal of "loose and unscientific etymologizing." The interpretations are perhaps "weak, farfetched" and etymological with a vengeance. But all said and done, it has to be recognized that the interpretation of these portions is far from certain or easy. While one may agree that the general tone and wording of Aranyakas are in favor of a mystic interpretation of Karma, it is difficult to establish any logical connection with VishNu, in all cases. The Supremacy of Prana as the central theme of the Vedas is obvious in ii,2,2 and perhaps also in the equation of that Prana with Brahman in B.S. i,1.29. But not so perhaps the further equation of that Prana with Vishnu attempted by Madhva on the strength of "NakArO balaM prANa AtmA" (A, A.iii,2,6).

Madhva selects four passages from the Aranyaka as representing its quintessence and from which he draws his doctrine of "Sarvasabda-samanvaya" in Brahman (Vishnu). This he adopts as the master-key to the interpretation of Mahaitareya. The whole od this Upanishad is to him but an exemplification of this thesis :

sarvaishca vaidikapadairapi lOkashabdaimEghAgnivAridhitalAdiravaishca sarvEH |

EkObhidhEyaparipUrNaguNaH priyOlaM nArAyaNO mama sadaiva sa tuShTimEtu ||

(Concluding verse of Madhva's BhAshya on Aitareya)

With a feeling of profound mysticism, he writes that not only the names of the gods and Rishis in the Vedas but even the very music of the spheres, the sounds of the ocean, the thunder of the clouds, and the noise of the falling trees voice the majesty of God:

EvamRuShishabdhEShu ca vyavahRiyamANAni sarvANi nAmAni viShNorEva muKyataH | kimu dEvatAnAmani ? 'yO dEvAnAM' (R.V. x. 82,3) 'iMdraM mitraM'(i, 164,46) 'yamiMdramAhuH' (T.B. iii,7,9,3) 'nAmAni sarvANi' (BallavEya SRuti) ityAdibhyaH SRutibhyaH na kEvalaM RuShyAd InAM nAma bhagavataH ; sarvE vEdA api tasyaiva nAmAni | kimu ca vEdAH ? samudramEghavRukShapatanabhErItADanAdisarvE GOShA api tasyaiva nAmAni yathAyOgaM yOjanIyAni | uktaM ca bRuhatsaMhitAyAm -

"hRuMkArENa sahaivAbdhiH" iti || (p.11 op. cit).

Save for the immediate 'partiality' for "Vishnu" which is the result of theological exigencies, these are lofty sentiments of which the greatest Theists of the world may be proud and to which any Mystic may rise in moments of highest divine estacy. When one recalls that "Vishnu" stands only for the Highest Being, there is no difficulty in admiring the dizzy heights of mysticism to which Madhva takes us in these contexts.

He has differed on many occasion from the interpretations of Samkara . Until the latter;s commentary on the other parts of the Mahaitareya is published, nothing defnite can be said about the extent of mutual differences between the two. There are instances where Sayana has indirectly attempted to answer some of the objections raised by Madhwa (cf. Sayana on ii, 3,3)

Madhva takes the oppurtunity afforded by the various controversial passages of the text of the Aitareya to discuss the points at issue between Dualism and Monoism. The doctriine of identity between Jiva and Brahman is refuted in connection with the dialogue between Indra and Visvamitra (ii,2,3) which is the subject of an adhikarana in B.S. i,1,29. The doctrine of attributeless Brahman is opposed and gradation (taratamya) and difference of various kinds are shown to exist in Moksha (pp. 15-16). The monistic interpretation of "yOhaM sOsau" "yOsau sOham" would be unnecessary; whereas on a realistic interpretation, such repitions in the reverse order would be expressive of close community of interests and friendly feeling between the two as in chaitrO maitraH ; maitrashcaivaH" He also argues that the terms "Aham" and "Asmi" are used as secret names of God, the entire passage meaning : That which is called "Aham" (i.e., "Aheya") The text cakShuRmitrasya varuNasyAgnEH proceeding sUrya AtmA jagatastasthuShashca is sufficient to show that Atma is used in the sense of inner ruler or guiding principle and that no identity is meant.