Saturday, April 16, 2016

Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.5.1-2


Verse 1.5.1:
यत्सप्तान्नानि मेधया तपसाजनयत्पिता ।
एकमस्य साधारणम्, द्वे देवानभाजयत् ॥
त्रीण्यात्मनेऽकुरुत, पशुभ्य एकं प्रायच्छत् ।
तस्मिन्सर्वम् प्रतिष्ठितम् यच्च प्राणिति यच्च न ॥
कस्मात्तानि न क्षीयन्तेऽद्यमानानि सर्वदा ।
यो वैतामक्षितिम् वेद  सोऽन्नमत्ति प्रतीकेन ॥
स देवानपिगच्छति, स ऊर्जमुपजीवति ॥
इति श्लोकाः ॥ १ ॥
yatsaptānnāni medhayā tapasājanayatpitā |
ekamasya sādhāraṇam, dve devānabhājayat ||
trīṇyātmane'kuruta, paśubhya ekaṃ prāyacchat |
tasminsarvam pratiṣṭhitam yacca prāṇiti yacca na ||
kasmāttāni na kṣīyante'dyamānāni sarvadā |
yo vaitāmakṣitim veda  so'nnamatti pratīkena ||
sa devānapigacchati, sa ūrjamupajīvati ||
iti ślokāḥ || 1 ||
1. That the father produced seven kinds of food through meditation and rites (I shall disclose). One is common to all eaters. Two he apportioned to the gods. Three he designed for himself. And one he gave to the animals. On it rests everything—what lives and what does not. Why are they not exhausted, although they are always being eaten? He who knows this cause of their permanence eats food with Pratīka (pre-eminence). He attains (identity with) the gods and lives on nectar. These are the verses.
Ignorance has been discussed. It has been said in that connection that an ignorant man worships another god, thinking he is different from himself, and that prompted by desire, he, identifying himself with [Page 199] a particular caste and order of life and being regulated by a sense of duty, performs rites such as making offerings in the ñre, which help the gods and others and make him an object of enjoyment to them. And as all beings by their rites individually projected him as their object of enjoyment, so did he by his performance of rites with five factors, such as making offerings in the fire, project all beings as well as the whole universe as his objects of enjoyment. Thus everyone according to his meditation and rites is both the enjoyer and the object of. enjoyment of the whole universe. That is to say, everyone is alternately the cause as well as the effect of everyone else.[1] This we shall describe in the section on knowledge, the meditation on things mutually helpful (II. v.), showing, as a step to the realisation of the unity of the self, how everything is the effect of everything else and helpful to it. The universe which the ignorant man in question projected as his object of enjoyment through his meditation and rites with material ends having five factors, such as making offerings in the fire, being divided in its entirety into seven parts as causes and effects, is called the seven kinds of food, being an object of enjoyment. Hence he is the father of these different kinds of food. These are the verses, Mantras describing in brief these varieties of food together with their uses, and are called Ślokas for that reason.


Now we enter the 5th brahmanam called saptanna brahmana - a big brahmanam - here the topic of adhyaropa continues - the topic of avidya sutram continues.
In this brahmanam the 2 main topics are jiva srshti and jiva bhoktrtvam. If you contrast with previous brahmana prajapati as srshti karta was seen now very same srshti is seen as jivasya srshti in previous brahmana jiva was seen as bhogya vastu - devanam pashu - here we see jiva as bhokta.
Jiva creates this world for his own bhogah experience.
For the convenience of discussion whole universe is divided into seven bhogya prapancha created by this jiva himself. Bhogya vastu in sanskrit is called annam. Annam means a particular meaning food and a general meaning whatever is experience. Ad root to eat to experience. Whole universe consists of sapra annani
Jiva himself has created this world through his karma and upasana.
Fundamental question why did God create this world is answered here - we ourselves have created this world from our karma. 

Up begins by condensing the whole section into one mantra - sutra bhuta mantra.
After this Up itself does the vyakhyanam commentary also

What are the 7 annams and how jiva created is said here.
Jiva - ajnani jiva - is called Pita the creator as he created the 7 annams - by means of medha upasana and tapas karma.
What are the 7 annams -the 1st is food. 2nd and 3rd are 2 annams in the form of oblations for the Devas. 4th annam is milk which is food for animals (at birth) Last 3 annams are in the form of organs created for enjoyment - manah mind vaak speech and prana
1st 4 are meant to give to others - viniyogartham - and last 3 are for ones own enjoyment - bhogartham.
The type of vak manah prana that one enjoys depends on what you have given to others. What you can enjoy depends on what you have given to the world.What is the cause for the permanence or continuity of these 7 annams?  Up says the jiva alone is the cause for their continuity. Purusho va akshiti akshaya hetu. Bhutobhava udbhavakara Karma is that which produces all the jivas. I produce my next mother my next father my next life with this karma. As Krishna says in the Gita 8.3 - bhuta bhava udbhava karovisargah karma-samjnitah



Verse 1.5.2:
‘यत्सप्तान्नानि मेधया तपसाजनयत्पिता’ इति मेधया हि तपसाजनयत्पिता । ‘एकमस्य साधारणम्’ इतीदमेवास्य तत् साधारणमन्नम् यदिदमद्यते । स य एतदुपास्ते न स पाप्मनो व्यावर्तते, मिश्रं ह्येतत् । ‘द्वे देवानभाजयत्’ इति हुतं च प्रहुतं च, तस्माद्देवेभ्यो जुह्वति च प्र च जुह्वति; अथो आहुर्दर्शपूर्णमासाविति । तस्मान्नेष्टियाजुकः स्यात् । ‘पशुभ्य एकं प्रायच्छत्’ इति तत्पयः । पयो ह्येवाग्रे मनुष्याश्च पशवश्चोपजीवन्ति; तस्मात् कुमारं जातं घृतं वै वाग्रे प्रतिलेहयन्ति, स्तनं वानुधापयन्ति; अथ वत्सम् जातमाहुरतृणाद इति । ‘तस्मिन् सर्वं प्रतिष्ठितम् यच्च प्राणिति यच्च न’ इति पयसि हीदं सर्वम् प्रतिष्ठितम्, यच्च प्राणिति यच्च न । तद्यदिदमाहुः, संवत्सरं पयसा जुह्वदप पुनर्मृत्युं जयतीति, न तथा विद्यात्; यदहरेव जुहोति, तदहः पुनर्मृत्युमपजयत्येवं विद्वान्, सर्वं हि देवेभ्योऽन्नाद्यम् प्रयच्छति । ‘कस्मात्तानि न क्षीयन्तेऽद्यमानानि सर्वदा’ इति पुरुषो वा अक्षितिः, स हीदमन्नं पुनः पुनर् जनयते । ‘यो वैतामक्षितिं वेद’ इति पुरुषो वा अक्षितिः, स हीदमन्नं धिया धिया जनयते कर्मभिः; यद्धैतन्न कुर्यात्क्षीयेत ह; ‘सोऽन्नमत्ति प्रतीकेन’ इति मुखम् प्रतीकम्, मुखेनेत्येतत् । ‘स देवानपिगच्छति, स ऊर्जमुपजीवति’ इति प्रशंसा ॥ २ ॥
'yatsaptānnāni medhayā tapasājanayatpitā’ iti medhayā hi tapasājanayatpitā | ‘ekamasya sādhāraṇam’ itīdamevāsya tat sādhāraṇamannam yadidamadyate | sa ya etadupāste na sa pāpmano vyāvartate, miśraṃ hyetat | ‘dve devānabhājayat’ iti hutaṃ ca prahutaṃ ca, tasmāddevebhyo juhvati ca pra ca juhvati; atho āhurdarśapūrṇamāsāviti | tasmānneṣṭiyājukaḥ syāt | ‘paśubhya ekaṃ prāyacchat’ iti tatpayaḥ | payo hyevāgre manuṣyāśca paśavaścopajīvanti; tasmāt kumāraṃ jātaṃ ghṛtaṃ vai vāgre pratilehayanti, stanaṃ vānudhāpayanti; atha vatsam jātamāhuratṛṇāda iti | ‘tasmin sarvaṃ pratiṣṭhitam yacca prāṇiti yacca na’ iti payasi hīdaṃ sarvam pratiṣṭhitam, yacca prāṇiti yacca na | tadyadidamāhuḥ, saṃvatsaraṃ payasā juhvadapa punarmṛtyuṃ jayatīti, na tathā vidyāt; yadahareva juhoti, tadahaḥ punarmṛtyumapajayatyevaṃ vidvān, sarvaṃ hi devebhyo'nnādyam prayacchati | ‘kasmāttāni na kṣīyante'dyamānāni sarvadā’ iti puruṣo vā akṣitiḥ, sa hīdamannaṃ punaḥ punar janayate | ‘yo vaitāmakṣitiṃ veda’ iti puruṣo vā akṣitiḥ, sa hīdamannaṃ dhiyā dhiyā janayate karmabhiḥ; yaddhaitanna kuryātkṣīyeta ha; ‘so'nnamatti pratīkena’ iti mukham pratīkam, mukhenetyetat | ‘sa devānapigacchati, sa ūrjamupajīvati’ iti praśaṃsā || 2 ||
2. ‘That the father produced seven kinds of food through meditation and rites’ means that the father indeed produced them through meditation and rites. ‘One is common to all eaters' means, this food that is eaten is the common food of all eaters. He who adores (monopolises) this food is never free from evil, for this is general food. ‘Two he apportioned to the gods,’ means making oblations in the fire, and offering presents otherwise to the gods. Therefore people perform both these. Some, however, say, those two are the new and full moon sacrifices. Therefore one should not be engrossed with sacrifices for material ends. ‘One he gave to the animals’—it is milk. For men and animals first live on milk alone. Therefore they first make a new-born babe lick clarified butter or suckle it. And they speak of a new-born calf as not yet eatrgg grass. ‘On it rests everything— what lives and what does not' means that on milk indeed rests all this that lives and that does not. It is said that by making offerings of milk in the fire for a year one conquers further death. One should not think like that. He who knows as above conquers further death the very day he makes that offering, for he offers all eatable food to the gods. ‘Why are they not exhausted, although they are always being eaten?’—means that the being (eater) is indeed the cause of their permanence, for he produces this food again and again. ‘He who knows this cause of their permanence’ means that the being (eater) is indeed the cause of their permanence, for he produces this food through his meditation for the time being and rites. If he does not do this, it will be exhausted. ‘He eats food with Pratīka’ [Page 202]‘Pratīka' means pre-eminence; hence the meaning is, pre-eminently. ‘He attains the gods and lives on nectar' is a eulogy.
That the father produced seven kinds of food through meditation and rites: ‘Yat’ (that) is an adverb modifying the verb ‘produced.’ The words ‘Medhā’ and ‘Tapas’ here mean meditation and rites respectively, for these are the topic, and the ordinary meanings of the words ‘Medhā’ and ‘Tapas’ (intelligence and austerity) are out of place. For rites with five factors, viz. the wife and so forth, were described, and just after that, meditation, referred to by the words, ‘He who knows it as such,’ etc. (I. iv. 17). Therefore the familiar meanings of the two words ‘Medhā’ and ‘Tapas’ must not be supposed here. Hence the meaning of the sentence is: ‘The seven kinds of food which the father produced through his meditation and rites, I shall disclose.’ The last words should be supplied to complete the sentence. In the Vēdâs the meaning of the Mantras, being hidden, is generally difficult to understand, hence the Brāhmaṇa[2] (this text) proceeds to explain them. Now what is the meaning of ‘That the father produced seven kinds of food through meditation and rites’? This is being answered. The text explains the sentence only by the use of the particle ‘hi’ (indeed) signifying a well-known fact. That is to say, the meaning of this Mantra is [Page 203] well known. The words of the Mantra, ‘That the father produced,' being of the form of a restatement, it also refers to something well known. Hence the Brāhmaṇa boldly says: The father indeed produced them through meditation and rites.
Objection: How is this meaning well known?
Reply: In the first place it is evident that the ignorant man is the father of the means, beginning with the wife and ending with the rites, whereby the worlds are achieved as the result, and it has also been stated in the passage, ‘Let me have a wife,’ etc. (I. iv. 17). There it has been said that meditation, which is divine wealth, rites and a son are the means whereby the father projects the worlds which are the results. And what will be stated later on (I. v. 16) is also well known. Hence it is right to say, ‘The father indeed produced them through meditation and rites.’ Moreover, it is well known in life that desire is concerning results. And the wife and so forth have been stated to be objects of desire in the passage, ‘This much indeed is desire’ (I. iv. 17). There can be no desire in the subject-matter of the knowledge of Brahman (liberation), for it is the oneness of everything. Hence it is implied that one’s natural[3] thoughts and actions, which are not according to the scriptures, of course lead to a projection of the relative universe (not liberation). This is also proved by the fact that the evil results ending in identity with stationary [Page 204] objects, are due to such thoughts and actions. But the text seeks to bring out that relation of end and means among objects which is according to the scriptures,[4] for it is sought to inculcate an aversion to them with a view to enjoining the knowledge of Brahman. For since this entire gross and subtle universe is impure, transitory, consisting of ends and means, painful and within the category of ignorance, one gets disgusted with it, and for such a one the knowledge of Brahman has to be introduced.
Now the different uses of the varieties of food are being stated: One is common to all eaters, is the wording of the Mantra. Its explanation is given by the words: This food is the common food of all eaters. What is it? This that is eaten by all beings daily. The father, after producing the different kinds of food, designed this to be the common food of all eaters. He who adores or is devoted to thiscommon food, which being eaten sustains the life of all living beings—adoration, as we see in life, means devotion, as when we say, ‘One adores a teacher,’ ‘One adores a king,’ etc.; hence the meaning is: who is chiefly concerned with enjoying food to prolong his existence, instead of performing rites to store (good) unseen results—such a man is never free from evil. Compare the Vedic Mantra, ‘(If an ignorant man) obtains food that is useless (to the gods, it is veritably his death)’ (Ṛ. X. cxvii. 6). And the Smṛtis, ‘One must not cook only for oneself’ (Mbh. XII. ccxlix. 5), ‘He who eats without offering to the gods is a thief’ (G. III. 12), [Page 205] ‘The killer of a noble Brāhmaṇa[5] wipes (his sin) in the man who eats his food,’ and so on (M. VIII. 317). Why is he not free from evil? For this food which is eaten by all beings is general food, the common property of all. And just because it is the food of all, any morsel that is put into the mouth is seen to be painful to others, for everyone eagerly expects that it will be his. Therefore it is impossible even to eat without causing pain to others. The Smṛti too says, ‘Since the sins of men (abide in food, it is a greater sin not to share it with others).’
Some say that it refers to the food called Vaiśva-deva, which is daily offered (in the fire) by householders for the beasts etc. This is wrong, for this particular food is not observed to be common to all eaters like that which is eaten by all creatures. Nor does the specification, ‘This that is eaten,’ agree with it. Besides, as this food known as Vaiśvadeva is included in that eaten by all creatures, the latter kind of food, which is also eaten by outcasts, dogs, etc., should be understood, for we see that there is this kind of food over and above that known as Vaiśvadeva. With regard to it the specification, ‘This that is eaten,’ is appropriate. If the words 'common to all eaters’ do not mean this food, it will give rise to a suspicion that it was not produced and apportioned by the father. But there is unanimity on the point that all kinds of food were produced and apportioned by him. Besides it is not right that one performing [Page 206] the scriptural rite called Vaiśvadeva should not be free from evils. And it has not been forbidden. Nor is it a naturally hateful type of work like fishing, for instance, for decent people practise it, and the Śruti says that sin accrues from its non-performance. But in the other case there is the possibility of sin, for the Vedic Mantra says, ‘I eat that person as food who eats food (without giving part of it to others)’ (Tai. III. x. 6).
Two he apportioned to the gods, is the wording of the Mantra. Which are the two kinds of food that he produced and apportioned to the gods? Making oblations in the fireand offering presents otherwise to the gods after finishing the former. Because the father distributed these two kinds of food to the gods,therefore to this day householders at the proper time perform both these, make oblations in the fire, thinking that they are offering that food to the gods, and after that offer them presents. Somehowever, say that the two kinds of food the father gave to the gods are not the above two offerings, but the new and full moon sacrifices. The first view holds that the above two offerings are meant, for the Śruti mentions both (food and offering) as two, and those offerings are very well known. (This is rebutted as follows:) Although the number is all right with regard to those two offerings, still the fact that the new and full moon sacrifices —which too are mentioned by the Śruti—are the food of the gods, is better known, being revealed by the Mantras. Besides, when the choice lies between a principal and a subordinate object (denoted by the same word), the preference goes to the former. Now [Page 207] the new and full moon sacrifices are more important than the above two offerings. Hence it is proper to conclude that they alone are meant by the words, ‘Two he apportioned to the gods.’ Because these two kinds of food, the new and full moon sacrifices, were set apart by the father for the gods, therefore, to keep them intact for the gods, one should not be engrossed with sacrifices for material ends. The word ‘Iṣṭi’ here means ‘Kāmyeṣṭi,’ sacrifices with material ends. This is well known from the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (I. iii. 5. 10). From the use of a suffix denoting habit we understand that one must not be primarily engrossed with the performance of these sacrifices with material ends.[6]
One he gave to the animals. What is that one food which the father gave to the animals? It is milk.How are we to know that the animals are the owners of it? This is being explained: For men and animals first live on milk alone. It must be their food, for how else would they systematically live on that first? How do they live on it first? Because men and animals to this day live on that food, just as the father apportioned it in the beginning. Therefore men of the upper three castes make a new-born babe lick clarified butter, in contact with gold, in the post-natal ceremony, or, i.e. afterwards, suckle it.The other castes (who do not have this ceremony) do whichever is practicable. In the case of animals other than men, they only suckle the young one. And they speak of [Page 208] of a new-born calf, when somebody asks them how old it is, as not yet eating grass, i.e. very young—still living on milk. Whether they first take clarified butter in the post-natal and other ceremonies, or whether others drink milk, in either case they drink but milk, for clarified butter, being a modification of milk, is also milk.
Why is the food of animals, which is the seventh in order, explained as the fourth? Because it is a means of rites. Rites such as the Agnihotra are performed with the help of milk. And these rites, which depend on wealth, are the means of the three kinds of food to be presently mentioned, which are the results —as the two kinds of food, the new and full moon sacrifices mentioned above. Hence, falling under the category of rites, it is explained together with them. Moreover, since both (they and it) are equally means, mere order should give precedence to the natural sequence due to sense. Besides, this way of explaining facilitates understanding. The different kinds of food can thus be easily explained without a break, and their meaning[7] too will be easily grasped. What is the meaning of, On it rests everything—what lives and what does not? That on milk indeed, the food of animals, rests all this, the whole universe in its threefold division according to the body, the elements and the gods— that lives,the animate kingdom, and that does not live, stationary objects such as hills. The word ‘indeed,’ signifying something well-known, furnishes the explanation. How is the substance called [Page 209] milk the support of everything? Because it is the cause. And it is a cause in that it is an integral part of rites such as the Agnihotra. That the whole universe is the result of the oblations offered in the Agnihotra and other rites, is proved by hundreds of Śruti and Smṛti texts. Hence it is quite proper to explain the Mantra by the use of the word ‘indeed.’
It is said in some other Brāhmaṇas that by making offerings of milk in the fire for a year one conquers further death. The reference is to the following: In a year three hundred and sixty oblations are offered (counting morning and evening oblations as one). That accounts for double the number (splitting each into two). The bricks called Yājuṣmatī, used in making the altar for the Agnihotra, being also of that number, the oblations are looked upon as these bricks, and so also are the days of the year. Through this meditation based on resemblance people attain identity with Fire, the Prajāpati called the Year. By offering oblations for a year in this way one conquers further death, i.e. is bom after death among the gods, no more to die. Thus do the Brāhmaṇa texts run. One should not think like thatHe who knoivs as stated above, that everything rests on milk, being the result of the oblations of milk, conquers further death the very day he makes that offering —he has not to wait for a year, but attains identity with the universe in one day. This is expressed by the text, ‘Conquers further death,' i.e. the sage dying once or getting rid of the body, is identified with the universe/ and does not take on another limited body to make further [Page 210] death possible. What is the reason of his conquering further death by attaining identity with the univferse? This is being answered: For he offers all eatable food to all the gods by means of the morning and evening oblations. Therefore it is proper that he, by making himself one with the oblations and attaining identity with all the gods as their food—being the sum total of them—does not die any more. This too has been stated in another Brāhmaṇa: 'Brahman, the self-born (a man seeking identity with Hiraṇyagarbha) performed rites. He reflected, “Rites do not produce eternal results. Well, let me offer myself in all beings (as in a fire) and all beings in me.” Offering himself in all beings and all beings in himself, he attained the highest place among all beings, independence and absolute rulership’ (Ś. XIII. vii. i. i).
Why are they not exhausted, although they are awlays, continuously, being eaten? Since the time when the father producing the seven kinds of food distributed them to different groups of eaters, they have been eating those foods, for they live on them. And they ought to be exhausted, since everything that is made must wear out. But they are not dwindling, for we see the universe remains intact. So there must be a cause for their permanence. Hence the question, ‘Why are they not exhausted?’ It is answered as follows: The being is indeed the cause of their permanence. Just as in the beginning the father was the producer of the different kinds of food through his meditation and rites with five factors such as the wife, and their eater too, so those to whom ho gave the foods, [Page 211] although they are their eaters, are their fathers as well, for they produce them through their meditation and rites. This is expressed as follows: The being who eats the foods is indeed the cause of their permanence. How? This is being explathed: For he produces this food of seven kinds that is eaten, consisting of the body and organs, actions and results, again and again through his meditation for the time being and rites, î.e. the efforts of his speech, mind and body. If he does not do this, not produce for a moment the seven kinds of food mentioned above through his meditation and rites, it would be exhausted, or finished, being continuously eaten. Therefore just as the being is continuously eating the foods, he is also creating them according to his meditation and rites. Hence the being is the cause of their permanence by continuously creating them. That is to say, for this reason the foods are not exhausted although they are being eaten. Therefore the whole universe consisting of a series of meditations and rites, means and ends, actions and results—although, being held together by a stream of work and impressions of innumerable beings in combination, it is transient, impure, flimsy, resembling a flowing river or a burning lamp, flimsy like a banana stalk, and comparable to foam, illusion, a mirage, a dream, and so on—appears nevertheless to those who have identified themselves with it to be undecaying, eternal and full of substance. Hence for stimulating our renunciation the text says, ‘He produces this food through his meditation for the time being and rites. If he does not do this, it will be exhausted,’ for from [Page 212] the second chapter the knowledge of Brahman has to be inculcated for those who are disgusted with this universe.

Although three kinds of food are yet to be described, still taking them as already explained along with the previous ones, the result of knowing these as they are, is being summed up: He who knows this cause of their permanence as described above, means that the being (eater) is indeed the cause of their permanence, for he produces this food through his meditation for the time being and rites. If he does not do this, it will be exhausted. He eats food with Pratīka is being explained: ‘Pratīka means pre-eminence; hence the meaning is, pre-eminently. He who knows that the being who is the father of the different lands of food is the cause of their permanence, pre-eminently eats food and never becomes a subsidiary part of it. Unlike an ignorant man, this sage, being the self of the foods, becomes only their eater, but never a food. He attains the gods, is identified with the gods, and lives on nectar: This statement is a eulogy; there is no new meaning in it.

Now the Up itself becomes the commentary of the 1st sloka.
Since annam is called sadharanam a person should never eat alone without sharing with others. sa ya etadupāste na sa pāpmano vyāvartate - he should selfishly consumes annam he incurs sin.
In Gita also it is said 3.12 Isttan bhogan hi vo deva dasyante yaina-bhavitah Tair dattan apradayaibhyo yo bhunkte stena eva sah But those who selfishly only cook for themselves disregarding the ‘Devta’ donors in fact feed on sins.

There are a pair of oblation - that are supposed to be aahuti in the fire to the devas hutam and after aahuti balidanam like anna pindam prahutam - these 2 hutam and prahutam are smarta karma.
Up gives an alternative pair of oblations darsham and puranamasam. Darsha ahuti oblation connected with amavasya and and full moon - these are shrauta karma. As per Shankara shrauta karma is more powerful and hence is preferred. So these 2 darsha purnamasau as offering to deva become the 2nd and 3rd annam - regular annam was the 1st. Here Up says do not do these karmas as kaamya karma - Next pashu annam is introduced as 4th annam - milk - food of all beings including humans at birth. Milk is also important as it is used for agnihotra ritual which is a nitya karma. many vedic karmas need ghee which is also based on milk. Whole world is born out of karma, and karma is born out of milk and whole world is dependent on milk.payasi hīdaṃ sarvam pratiṣṭhitam.
With milk if he does agnihotra along with upasana looking upon milk as everything - he is giving the danam of the whole - and therefore the agnihotra karma becomes very powerful and he gets amrtatvam immortality. (Incidentally Up also here clarifies that another view that 1 year of upasana samvastsara prajapati upasana is required is not correct but only one day is sufficient)

Up says because of kartrtvam he becomes a bhokta and hence he creates /enters the world. If the individual had become akarta (through atmajnana) he will have never become bhokta. Hence he as a karta is the cause for these annams being permanent. 

In the previous Brahmana the jiva has been said to be a bhogyam and the world was said to be bhokta. In this section jiva is said to be bhokta and world is a bhogyam.
Bhoktr bhogya sambandha is interrelated. This interrelationship where everything can be bhokta as well as bhogyam and cannot be clearly categorized and defined is a pointer to the world being mitha.

Martyannam or manushya annam - 2 Devannams darhsapurnamasau and Pashuannam have been enumerated. Rest 3 manah vak pranam are atma annam for a total of 7.
1st 4 are for distributing to others daanam - to men, gods and the animals and also offering during agnihotra and other rituals. Other 3 are meant for receiving. Only when 4 danams are made properly the other 3 will be properly recceived.
  


Monday, April 11, 2016

Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.16-17


Verse 1.4.16:
अथो अयं वा आत्मा सर्वेषाम् भूतानां लोकः; स यज्जुहोति, यद्यजते, तेन देवानां लोकः। अथ यदनुब्रूते तेन र्षिणाम्, अथ यत्पितृभ्यो निपृणाति, यत्प्रजामिच्छते, तेन पितृणाम्; अथ यन्मनुष्यान्वासयते, यदेभ्योऽशनं ददाति, तेन मनुष्याणाम्; अथ यत्पशुभ्यस्तृणोदकं विन्दति, तेन पशूनाम्; यदस्य गृहेषु श्वापदा वयांस्या पिपीलिकाभ्य उपजीवन्ति, तेन तेषां लोकः; यथा ह वै स्वाय लोकायारिष्टिमिच्छेत्, एवं हैवंविदे सर्वाणि भूतान्यरिष्टिमिच्छन्ति; तद्वा एतद्विदितम् मीमांसितम् ॥ १६ ॥
atho ayaṃ vā ātmā sarveṣām bhūtānāṃ lokaḥ; sa yajjuhoti, yadyajate, tena devānāṃ lokaḥ. atha yadanubrūte tena rṣiṇām, atha yatpitṛbhyo nipṛṇāti, yatprajāmicchate, tena pitṛṇām; atha yanmanuṣyānvāsayate, yadebhyo'śanaṃ dadāti, tena manuṣyāṇām; atha yatpaśubhyastṛṇodakaṃ vindati, tena paśūnām; yadasya gṛheṣu śvāpadā vayāṃsyā pipīlikābhya upajīvanti, tena teṣāṃ lokaḥ; yathā ha vai svāya lokāyāriṣṭimicchet, evaṃ haivaṃvide sarvāṇi bhūtānyariṣṭimicchanti; tadvā etadviditam mīmāṃsitam || 16 ||
16. Now this self (the ignorant man) is an object of enjoyment to all beings. That he makes oblations in the fire and performs sacrifices is how he becomes such an object to the gods. That he studies the Vedas is how he becomes an object of enjoyment to the Ṛṣis (sages). That he makes offerings to the Manes and desires children is how he becomes such an object to the Manes. That he gives shelter to men as well as food is how he becomes an object of enjoyment to men. That he gives fodder and water to the animals is how he becomes such an object to them. And that beasts and birds, and even the ants, feed in hishome is how he becomes an object of enjoyment to these. Just as one wishes safety to one's body, so do all beings wish safety to him who knows it as such. This indeed has been known, and discussed.
[Page 188] Now—this word is introductory—this self, the householder qualified for rites, who is the subject under consideration, and who being ignorant identifies himself with this microcosm consisting of the body, organs, and so on, is an object of enjoyment to all beings, from the gods down to the ants, being helpful to them through the performance of the duties of their caste, order of life, etc. Now, through what particular duties do they help each particular class, for which they are called the objects of enjoyment to them, and what are these particular classes? This is being answered: That he, this householder, makes oblations in the fire and performs sacrifices, etc. The latter is dedicating some of his things to the gods, and the former is finally offering them in the fire. By this twofold imperative duty he is tied to the gods, being dependent on them like animals. Hence he is their object of enjoyment. That he studies the Vedas daily [Page 189] is how he becomes an object of enjoyment to the Ṛṣis. That he makes offerīngs to the Manes, of cakes, water, etc., and desires children, tries to obtain them—‘desire’ here includes the having of them i.e. raises children, is how he becomes such an object to the Manes. Through this bounden duty he is subservient to the Manes as an object of enjoyment.That he gives shelter to men in his house by giving them a place to sit on, water for washing, and so on,as well as food to these people who stay, or to others who do not stay, but ask for food, is how he becomes an object of enjoyment to men. That he gives fodder and water to the animals is how he becomes such an object to them. And that beasts and birds, and even the ants, feed in his home on the crumbs, the offerings made to them, washings of utensils, etc. is how he becomes an object of enjoyment to these.
Because he helps the gods and others by so many services, therefore just as one wishes safety,nondestruction, continuity of the idea of possession, to one’s body, maintains it in all respects by nourishing and protecting it lest one should lose one’s hold on it, so do all beings, the gods and the rest described above, wish safety, non-destruction, to him who knows it as such, who thinks that he is an object of enjoyment to all beings, and that he must discharge his obligations like a debtor as above. That is, they protect him in all respects to safeguard their rights on him, as a householder does his animals. It has been said, ‘Therefore it is not liked by them,’ etc. (I. iv. 10). This, that the above-mentioned duties must be discharged [Page 190] like debts, indeed has been known from the section dealing with the five[57] great sacrifices (Ś. I. vii. 2. 6), and discussed in the section on the sacrificial offerings (Ś. I. vii. 2. 1).
If by knowing Brahman he gets rid of that bondage of duty which makes him an animal, as it were, under what compulsion does he take up the bondage of ritualistic work as if he were helpless, and not the pursuit of knowledge which is the means of freedom from that?
Objection: Has it not been said that the gods guard him?
Reply: Yes, but they too guard only those who, being qualified for rites, are under their authority. Otherwise this would be attaining the results of actions not done and forfeiting those of actions actually done. But they do not guard any and every man not particularly qualified for rites. Therefore there must be something, goaded by which a man becomes averse to one’s own world, the Self, as if he were helpless.
Objection: Is it not ignorance, for only an ignorant man becomes averse to his own self and engages in activity?
Reply: That is not the motive power either, for it merely conceals the true nature of a thing. But it indirectly becomes the root of initiating action, just as blindness is the cause of one’s falling into a a pit etc.
Objection: [Page 191] Well then, say what is the cause of a man’s activity.
Reply: That is being stated here—it is desire. As the Kaṭha Upaniṣad (II. 5) says that fools, being under ignorance which is natural to man, are outgoing in their tendencies and pursue objects of desire. And the Smṛti also says, ‘It is desire, it is anger,’[58] etc. (G. III. 37). And the Manu Saṃhitā (II. 4) also describes all activity as being due to desire. This import is being elaborated here up to the end of the chapter:

An ignorant person is a pashu or animal who has to serve all the beings in the world. in shastra every ajnani is considered a rni- an indebted person. As long as he is ajnana and rni he should remain in vaidika karma, be a grhstha and do his duty as a service to all. What all he has to serve is listed. Only way to avoid this is jnana. Until then entire life is a series of sacrifices to relieve the debt. As a byproduct what he gets incidentally he can enjoy.
Normally we think aham bhogta and whole world is bhogya
Here Up reverses this and says you are the bhogya and the entire world is the bhokta.atho ayaṃ vā ātmā sarveṣām bhūtānāṃ lokaḥ.When he makes oblations he gives bhogam to the devas. When he studies Vedas he gives bhogam to the Rshis, by begetting children to the pitrs, by accomodating and feeding guests to other men, and so on.
This way - by being a source of bhoga to so many - a man acquires goodwill from so many sources - this has been dealt with as pancha mahayajna
Just as removal of debt is optional, these pancha mahayajna is a nitya naimittika karma failing which a grhstha obtains pratyavaya paapam and thus is not optional but mandatory. 
Verse 1.4.17:
आत्मैवेदमग्र आसीतेक एव; सोऽकामयत—जाया मे स्यात्, अथ प्रजायेय; अथ वित्तम् मे स्यात्, अथ कर्म कुर्वीयेति; एतावान् वै कामः, नेच्छंश्चनातो भूयो विन्देत्; तस्मादप्येतर्ह्येकाकी कामयते—जाया मे स्यात्, अथ प्रजायेय; अथ वित्तं मे स्यात्, अथ कर्म कुर्वीयेति; स यावदप्येतेषामेकैकम् न प्राप्नोति, अकृत्स्न एव तावन्मन्यते; तस्यो कृत्स्नता—मन एवास्यात्मा, वाग्जाया, प्राणः प्रजा, चक्षुर्मानुषं वित्तम्, चक्षुषा हि तद्विन्दते; श्रोत्रं दैवम्, श्रोत्रेण हि तच्छृणोति; अत्मैवास्य कर्म, आत्मना हि कर्म करोति; स एष पाङ्क्तो यज्ञः, पाङ्क्तः पशुः, पाङ्क्तः पुरुषः, पाङ्क्तमिदं सर्वं यदिदं किञ्च; तदिदं सर्वमाप्नोति य एवं वेद ॥ १७ ॥
ātmaivedamagra āsīteka eva; so'kāmayata—jāyā me syāt, atha prajāyeya; atha vittam me syāt, atha karma kurvīyeti; etāvān vai kāmaḥ, necchaṃścanāto bhūyo vindet; tasmādapyetarhyekākī kāmayate—jāyā me syāt, atha prajāyeya; atha vittaṃ me syāt, atha karma kurvīyeti; sa yāvadapyeteṣāmekaikam na prāpnoti, akṛtsna eva tāvanmanyate; tasyo kṛtsnatā—mana evāsyātmā, vāgjāyā, prāṇaḥ prajā, cakṣurmānuṣaṃ vittam, cakṣuṣā hi tadvindate; śrotraṃ daivam, śrotreṇa hi tacchṛṇoti; atmaivāsya karma, ātmanā hi karma karoti; sa eṣa pāṅkto yajñaḥ, pāṅktaḥ paśuḥ, pāṅktaḥ puruṣaḥ, pāṅktamidaṃ sarvaṃ yadidaṃ kiñca; tadidaṃ sarvamāpnoti ya evaṃ veda || 17 ||
17. This (aggregate of desirable objects) was but the self in the beginning—the only entity. He desired, ‘Let me have a wife, so that I may be born (as the child). And let me have wealth, so that I may perform rites.’ This much indeed is (the range of) desire. Even if one wishes, one cannot get more than this. Therefore to this day a man being single desires, ‘Let me have a wife, so that I may be born. And let me have wealth, so that I may perform rites.’ Until he obtains each one of these, he considers himself incomplete. His completeness also (comes thus): The mind is his self, speech his wife, the vital force his child, the eye his human wealth, for he obtains it through the eye, the ear his divine wealth, for he hears of it through the ear, and the body is its (instrument of) rite, for he performs rites through the body. (So) this sacrifice has five factors—the animals have five factors, the men have five factors, and all this that exists has five factors. He who knows it as such attains all this.
This was but the self in the beginning, before marriage. ‘Self’ here means a natural, ignorant man of the upper three castes identified with the body and organs (i.e. a student). There was nothing different from that self that could be desired, such as a wife, and the self was the only entity in existence, possessed of ignorance which is the root of the desire for a wife and so forth. Being tinged by the impressions of ignorance that are natural to one and consist in a [Page 193] superimposition on the Self of ideas of action, its factors such as the agent, and its results, he desired. How? Let me, the agent, have a wife who will qualify me for the rites. Without her I am not qualified for them. Hence let me have a wife, to confer on me this right. So that I myself may be born, as the child. And let me have wealthsuch as cattle, which are the means of performing the rites, so that I may perform rites[59] that will give me prosperity and liberation, in order that I may perform rites that will wipe out my indebtedness and help me to attain the worlds of the gods and others, as well as rites that have material ends, such as those leading to the birth of a son, wealth and heaven. This much indeed, i.e. limited to these things only, is desire. Desirable objects are only these—the things comprised by the desire for means, viz. wife, son, wealth and rites. The three worlds, viz. those of men, the Manes and the gods, are but the results of the above. For the desire for means, viz. wife, son, wealth and rites, is for securing these. Therefore the desire for the worlds is the same as the previous one. That one and the same desire assumes a twofold aspect according to ends and means. Hence it will be asserted later on, ‘For both these are but desires’ (III. v. 1; IV. iv. 22).
Since all undertakings are for the sake of results, the desire for the worlds, being implied by the former desire, is taken as mentioned; hence the assertion, ‘This much indeed is desire.' When eating has been mentioned, the resulting satisfaction has not to be separately mentioned, for eating is meant for that.[Page 194] These two hankerings after the ends and means are the desire, prompted by which an ignorant man helplessly enmeshes himself like a silkworm, and through absorption in the path of rituals becomes outgoing in his tendencies and does not know his own worlā, the Self. As the Taittiriya Brāhmaṇa says, ‘Being infatuated with rites performed with the help of fire, and choked by smoke, they do not know their own world, the Self' (III. x. 11. 1). One may ask, how are desires asserted to be so many, for they are infinite? This is being explained: Because even if one wishes, one cannot get more than this, which consists of the results and means. There is nothing in life besides these results and means, either visible or invisible, that can be acquired. Desire is concerning things to be acquired, and since these extend no farther than the above, it is but proper to say, ‘This much indeed is desire.’ The idea is this: Desire consists of the two hankerings after the ends and means, visible or invisible, which are the special sphere of an ignorant man. Hence the wise man should renounce them.
In ancient times an ignorant man possessed of desire wished like this, and others before him had also done the same. Such is the way of the world. This creation of Virāj has been like this. It has been said that he was afraid on account of his ignorance; then, prompted by desire, he was unhappy in being alone, and to remove that boredom he wished for a wife; and he was united with her, which led to this creation. Because it was like this, therefore to this day, in his creation, a man being single, before marriage, desires, ‘Let me have a wife, so that I may be born. And let [Page 195] me have wealth, so that I may perform rites.’ This has already been explathed. Desiring like this and trying to secure a wife and so forth, until he obtains each one of these, the wife and the rest, he considers himself incomplete. As a corollary to this, we understand that he is complete when he secures all of these things. But when he fails to attain this completeness, the Śruti suggests a method to bring this about: His completeness, the completeness of this man who considers himself incomplete, is this—comes about in this way. How? This body with organs etc. is being divided. Since the rest of them follow the mind, it, being their chief, is like the self, hence it is his self. As the head of a family is the self, as it were, of the wife and the rest,[60] for these four follow him, so here also the mind is conceived of as the self of this man for his completeness. Similarly speech is his wife, for speech follows the mind as a wife does her husband. ‘Speech’ here means words conveying an injunction or prohibition, which the mind receives through the ear, understands and uses. Hence speech is like a wife to the mind. These, speech and mind, standing for wife and husband, produce the vital force for performing rites. Hence the vital force is like a child.
These rites, which represent the activity of the vital force etc., are performed with the help of wealth that is visible to the eye. Hence the eye is human wealth. Wealth is of two kinds, human and other than human; hence the qualifying word ‘human’ to keep out the other kind. Human wealth such as cattle,[Page 196] which is used in ceremonies, is seen by the eye. Hence the eye stands for it. Because of this relationship with it, the eye is called human wealth. For he obtains it, the human wealth, through the eye, i.e. sees cows etc. What is the other kind of wealth? The ear is divine wealth, for since meditation is concerning the gods, it is called divine wealth, and here the ear corresponds to that. How? For he hears of it, the divine wealth, or meditation, through the ear. Hence, meditation being dependent on the ear, the latter is called divine wealth. Now in this matter of resemblances what is the rite that is performed by these beginning with the self and ending with wealth? This is being answered: The body is his rite. ‘Ātman’ (self) here means the body. How does the body stand for the rite? Because it is the cause of the rite. How? For he performs rītes through the body. For the man who considers himself incomplete, completeness can be attained in this way through imagination, just as externally it can be brought about by having a wife and so on. Therefore this sacrifice has five factors, and is accomplished only through meditation even by one who does not perform rites. But how can it be called a sacrifice by being merely conceived as having five factors? Because the external sacrifice too is performed through animals and men, and both these have five factors, being connected with the five things described above, such as the mind. This is expressed by the text: The animals such as cows,have five factors, and the men have five factors. Although men also are animals, yet being qualified for rites, they are distinguished from [Page 197] the others, hence they are separately mentioned. In short, all this, the means and the results of rites, that exists has five factors. He who knows it as such, imagines himself to be the sacrifice consisting of five factors, attains all this universe as his own self.
Kaama is the root cause of all of mans activities. So'kamayata. Atma here refers to a ajnani brahmachari. He desires a wife. Vaidika karma is called vankta. Vankta means a ritual involving 5 factors. The five factors are patni wife yajamana performer putra son manusham vittam material resources like healthy body wealth for danam daivam vittam. All these 5 factors are posible only in ghasthashrama - not in brhmachari and vanaprastha ashrami. A person becomes grhastha to do vaidika karma and thereby become devanam pashu. 
So he desires a wife so that i may become a son myself through the wife (become reborn) A wife jyaaya in manusmrti is defined as the one in whom the husband is reborn as the son yad asyam jyayate punah.
So shastric meaning for jayo me syaat means let me be reborn as son atha prajayeya. Then he desired for wealth etc for performance of karma. A ajnani can desire for this alone - sadhana iccha. When brahmachari enters grhsthahrama he has sadhana sadhya kaama (when he enters sannyasahrama he has siddha kaama)
This parampara continues  until now - ajnani ekaki - has all these desires. And if any of them is missing he feels incomplete. Suppose he is not able to enter grhasthashrama - he can do upasana by meditate each organ as each of these factors - this is called adhyatma upasana - mind is the yajamana (here atma means yajamana) speech is the wife (vak functions in accordance with the wish of the mind) Prana is meditated as son, and eyes as wealth/material resources and ears are the spiritual or divine wealth - all spiritual knowledge is through Shruti or veda. So everyone has these 5 fold wealth. The whole universe is panktam - at individual level it is called adhyatma panktam at samashti level it is adhidaiva panktam. 

In Taitt Upanishad also 

pruthivyantariksham dyou-rdisho~vaantaradishaaha | agnirvaaraaditya-shchandramaa
nakshatraaNi | aapa oshadhayo vanaspataya aakaasha aatmaa | ityadhibhootam | athhadhyaatmam | praaNo vyaano~paana usaanassamaanaha | chakshushshrotram
mano vaak tvak | charmamaagmsagg snaavaa~sthi majjaa | eta-dadhividhaaya rushiravochat
| paa~gktam vaa idagm sarvam | paa~gktenaiva paanktagg spruNoteeti
|| 15 || 


With this 4TH BRAHMANA is concluded.

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4,11- 1.4.15

Verse 1.4.11:
ब्रह्म व इदमग्र आसीदेकमेव; तदेकं सन्न व्यभवत् । तच्छ्रेयोरूपमत्यसृजत क्षत्रम्, यान्येतानि देवत्रा क्षत्राणि—इन्द्रो वरुणः सोमो रुद्रः पर्जन्यो यमो मृइत्युरीशान इति । तस्मात्क्षत्रात्परं नस्ति; तस्मात्ब्राह्मणः क्षत्रियमधस्तादुपास्ते राजसूये, क्षत्र एव तद्यशो दधाति; सैषा क्षत्रस्य योनिर्यद्ब्रह्म । तस्माद्यद्यपि राजा परमताम् गच्छति ब्रह्मैवान्तत उपनिश्रयति स्वाम् योनिम्; य उ एनं हिनस्ति स्वां स योनिमृच्छति, स पापीयान् भवति, यथा स्रेयांसं हिंसित्वा ॥ ११ ॥
brahma va idamagra āsīdekameva; tadekaṃ sanna vyabhavat | tacchreyorūpamatyasṛjata kṣatram, yānyetāni devatrā kṣatrāṇi—indro varuṇaḥ somo rudraḥ parjanyo yamo mṛityurīśāna iti | tasmātkṣatrātparaṃ nasti; tasmātbrāhmaṇaḥ kṣatriyamadhastādupāste rājasūye, kṣatra eva tadyaśo dadhāti; saiṣā kṣatrasya yoniryadbrahma | tasmādyadyapi rājā paramatām gacchati brahmaivāntata upaniśrayati svām yonim; ya u enaṃ hinasti svāṃ sa yonimṛcchati, sa pāpīyān bhavati, yathā sreyāṃsaṃ hiṃsitvā || 11 ||
11. [Page 174] In the beginning this (the Kṣatriya and other castes) was indeed Brahman,[45]one only. Being one, he did not flourish. He specially projected an excellent form, the Kṣatriya—those who are Kṣatriyas among the gods: Indra, Varuṇa, the moon, Rudra, Parjanya, Yama, Death, and Iśāna. Therefore there is none higher than the Kṣatriya. Hence the Brāhmaṇa worships the Kṣatriya from a lower position in the Rājasūya sacrifice. He imparts that glory to the Kṣatriya. The Brāhmaṇa is the source of the Kṣatriya. Therefore, although the king attains supremacy (in the sacrifice), at the end of it he resorts to the Brāhmaṇa, his source. He who slights the Brahmaṇa, strikes at his own source. He becomes more wicked, as one is by slighting one’s superior.
In the beginning this, the Kṣatriya and other castes, was indeed Brahman, identical with that Brahman (Virāj) who after manifesting Fire assumed the form of that. He is called Brahman, because he identified himself with the Brāhmaṇa caste. One only:Then there was no differentiation into other [Page 175] castes such as the Kṣatriya. Being one, i.e. without any protector etc. such as the Kṣatriya, he did not flourish, i.e. could not do his Work properly. Hence he, Virāj, thinking, ‘I am a Brāhmaṇa, and these are my duties,’ in order to create duties pertaining to a Brāhmaṇa by birth—to glorify himself as a performer of rites— specially, pre-eminently, projected an excellent form. What is that? The caste called Kṣatriya. This is being pointed out by a reference to its individuals. Those who are well known in the world as Kṣatriyas among the gods. The plural is used (in ‘Kṣatriyas’), as in grammar a word denoting a caste may be optionally in the plural.[46] Or because there are many individuals in a caste, the difference is figuratively transferred to the group. Who are they? This the text answers by mentioning particularly the anointed ones: Indra, the King of gods; Varuṇa, of the aquatic animals; the moon, of the Brāhmaṇas; Rudra, of the beasts; Parjanya, of lightning etc.; Yama, of the Manes; Death,of disease etc.; and Iśāna, of luminaries. These are some of the Kṣatriyas, among the gods. It should be understood that after them the human Kṣatriyas, Purūravas and others belonging to the Lunar and Solar dynasties, presided over by the Kṣatriya gods, Indra and the rest, were also created. For the creation of the gods is mentioned for this very purpose. Because Virāj created the Kṣatriyas with some special eminence attached to them, therefore there is none higher than the Kṣatriya, who is the controller of the Brāhmaṇa caste even. [Page 176] Hence the Brāhmaṇa, although he is the source of him, worships the Kṣatriya, who has a higher seat, from a lower position. Where? In the Rājasūya sacrificeHe imparts that glory or fame which belongs to him, viz. the title of Brahman, to the Kṣatriya. That is to say, when the king, anointed for the Rājasūya sacrifice, addresses the priest from his chair as ‘Brahman.’ the latter replies to him, ‘You, O King, are Brahman.’ This is referred to in the sentence, ‘He imparts that glory to the Kṣatriya.’ The Brāhmaṇa, who is the topic under consideration, is indeed the source of the Kṣatriya. Therefore, although the king attains supremacy, viz. the distinction of being anointed for the Rājasūya sacrifice, at the end of it, when the ceremony is over, he resorts to the Brāhmaṇa, his source, i.e. puts the priest forward. But he who, proud of his strength, slights or looks down upon the Brāhmaṇa, his own source, strikes at or destroys his own source. He becomes more wicked by doing this. The Kṣatriya is already wicked on account of his cruelty, and he is more so by hurting his own source, as in life one is more wicked by slighting one’s superior.

Verse 1.4.12:
स नैव व्यभवत्, स विशमसृजत, यान्येतानि देवजातानि गणश आख्यायन्ते—वसवो रुद्रा आदित्या विश्वेदेवा मरुत इति ॥ १२ ॥
sa naiva vyabhavat, sa viśamasṛjata, yānyetāni devajātāni gaṇaśa ākhyāyante—vasavo rudrā ādityā viśvedevā maruta iti || 12 ||
12. Yet he did not flourish. He projected the Vaiśya—those species of gods who are designated in groups: The Vasus, Rudras, Adityas, Viśvadevas and Maruts.
[Page 177] Yet, even after projecting the Kṣatriyas, he, Virāj, did not flourish in his work, as before, for want of someone to acquire wealth. He projected the Vaiśya, in order to acquire wealth which is the means of performing rites. Who is that Vaiśya? Those species of gods who are designated in groups. The Vaiśyas abound in groups, for they succeed in acquiring wealth mostly in combination, not singly.—The suffix in the word 'Jāta' does not change the meaning.— The Vasus, a group of eight; similarly the eleven Rudras, the twelve Ādityas, the thirteen Viśvadevas, sons of Viśvā, or the word may mean ‘all the gods,’ and the forty-nine Maruts, in seven groups.

Verse 1.4.13:
स नैव व्यभवत्, स शौद्रं वर्णमसृजत पूषणम्; इयं वै पूषा, इयं हीदं सर्वं पुष्यति यदिदं किंच ॥ १३ ॥
sa naiva vyabhavat, sa śaudraṃ varṇamasṛjata pūṣaṇam; iyaṃ vai pūṣā, iyaṃ hīdaṃ sarvaṃ puṣyati yadidaṃ kiṃca || 13 ||
13. He did not still flourish. He projected the śūdra caste—Pūṣan. This (earth) is Pūṣan. For it nourishes all this that exists.
For want of a servant he did not still flourish. He projected the Śūdra caste. In the word ‘Śaudra’ there is a lengthening of the vowel without any change of meaning. What was this Śūdra caste that was projected? Pūṣan, he who nourishes. Who is this Pūṣan? He is being particularly pointed out: This


Verse 1.4.14:
स नैव व्यभवत्, तत्छ्रेयोरूपमत्यसृजत धर्मम्; तदेतत् क्षत्रस्य क्षत्रं यद्धर्मः, तस्माद्धर्माद्परं नास्ति; अथो अबलीयान् बलीयांसमाशंसते धर्मेण, यथा राज्ञैवम्; यो वै स धर्मः सत्यं वै तत्, तस्मात् सत्यं वदन्तमाहुः, धर्मं वदतीति, धर्मं वा वदन्तम् सत्यं वदतीति, एतद्ध्येवैतदुभयं भवति ॥ १५ ॥
sa naiva vyabhavat, tatchreyorūpamatyasṛjata dharmam; tadetat kṣatrasya kṣatraṃ yaddharmaḥ, tasmāddharmādparaṃ nāsti; atho abalīyān balīyāṃsamāśaṃsate dharmeṇa, yathā rājñaivam; yo vai sa dharmaḥ satyaṃ vai tat, tasmāt satyaṃ vadantamāhuḥ, dharmaṃ vadatīti, dharmaṃ vā vadantam satyaṃ vadatīti, etaddhyevaitadubhayaṃ bhavati || 14 ||
14. [Page 178] Yet he did not flourish. He specially projected that excellent form, righteousness (Dharma).[47] This righteousness is the controller of the Kṣatriya. Therefore there is nothing higher than that. (So) even a weak man hopes (to defeat) a stronger man through righteousness, as (one contending) with the king.[48] That righteousness is verily truth. Therefore they say about a person speaking of truth, ‘He speaks of righteousness,’ or about a person speaking of righteousness,’ He speaks of truth,’ for both these are but righteousness.
Yet, even after projecting the four castes, he did not flourish, fearing that the Kṣatriya, being fierce, might be unruly. He specially projected that excellent form. What is it? Righteousness. This righteousness, the projected excellent form, is the controller of even the Kṣatriya, fiercer than that fierce race even. ‘Yat’ should be changed into ‘Yah.’ Therefore, since it is the controller of even the Kṣatriya, there is nothing higher than that, for it controls all. The text proceeds to explain how it is: So even a weak man hopes to defeat a stronger man than himself through the strength of righteousness, asin life a householder contending [Page 179] even with the king, who is the most powerful of all. Therefore it goes without saying that righteousness, being stronger than everything else, is the controller of all.That righteousness, which is expressed as conduct, being practised by people, is verily truth. ‘Truth’ is the fact of being in accordance with the scriptures. The same thing, when it is practised, is called righteousness, and when it is understood to be in accordance with the scriptures, is truth. Since it is so,therefore bystanders knowing the difference between them say about a person speaking of truth, i.e. what is in accordance with the scriptures, in dealing with another, ‘He speaks of righteousness,’ or well known conventional propriety. Conversely also, about a person speaking of rīghteousness or conventional conduct, they say, ‘He speaks of truth,’ or what is in accordance with the scriptures. For both these that have been described, that which is known and that which is practised, are but rīghteousness. Therefore that righteousness in its double aspect of knowledge and practice controls all, those that know the scriptures as well as those that do not. Therefore it is the ‘controller of the Kṣatriya.’ Hence an ignorant man identified with righteousness, in order to practise its particular forms, identifies himself with one or other of the castes, Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya, Vaiśya or Śūdra, which is the pre-condition of that practice; and these are naturally the means that qualify one for the performance of rites.

Verse 1.4.15:
तदेतद्ब्रह्म क्षत्रं विद् शूद्रः; तदग्निनैव देवेषु ब्रह्माभवत्; ब्राह्मणो मनुष्येषु, क्षत्रियेण क्षत्रियो, वैश्येन वैश्यह्, सूद्रेण शूद्रः; तस्मादग्नावेव देवेषु लोकमिच्छन्ते, ब्राह्मणे मनुष्येषु, एताभ्यां हि रूपाभ्यां ब्रह्माभवत् । अथ यो ह वा अस्माल्लोकात्स्वं लोकमदृष्त्वा प्रैति, स एनमविदितो न भुनक्ति, यथा वेदो  वाननूक्तः, अन्यद्वा कर्माकृतम्; यदिह वा अप्यनेवंविन्महत्पुण्यं कर्म करोति, तद्धास्यान्ततः क्षीयत एव; आत्मानमेव लोकमुपासीत; स य आत्मानमेव लोकमुपास्ते, न हस्य कर्म क्षीयते । अस्माद्ध्येवात्मनो यद्यत्कामयते तत्तत्सृजते ॥ १४ ॥
tadetadbrahma kṣatraṃ vid śūdraḥ; tadagninaiva deveṣu brahmābhavat; brāhmaṇo manuṣyeṣu, kṣatriyeṇa kṣatriyo, vaiśyena vaiśyah, sūdreṇa śūdraḥ; tasmādagnāveva deveṣu lokamicchante, brāhmaṇe manuṣyeṣu, etābhyāṃ hi rūpābhyāṃ brahmābhavat | atha yo ha vā asmāllokātsvaṃ lokamadṛṣṭvā praiti, sa enamavidito na bhunakti, yathā vedo  vānanūktaḥ, anyadvā karmākṛtam; yadiha vā apyanevaṃvinmahatpuṇyaṃ karma karoti, taddhāsyāntataḥ kṣīyata eva; ātmānameva lokamupāsīta; sa ya ātmānameva lokamupāste, na hasya karma kṣīyate | asmāddhyevātmano yadyatkāmayate tattatsṛjate || 14 ||
15. [Page 180] (So) these (four castes were projected)— the Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya, Vaiśya and Śūdra. He became a. Brāhmaṇa among the gods as Fire, and among then as the Brāhmaṇa. (He became) a Kṣatriya through the (divine) Kṣatriyas, a Vaiśya through the (divine) Vaiśyas and a Śūdra through the (divine) Śūdra. Therefore people desire to attain the results of their rites among the gods through fire, and among men as the Brāhmaṇa. For Brahmaṇ was in these two forms. If, however, anybody departs from this world without realising his own world (the Self), It, being unknown, does not protect him—as the Vedas not studied, or any other work not undertaken (do not). Even if a man who does not know It as such performs a great many meritorious acts in the world, those acts of his are surely exhausted in the end. One should meditate only upon the world of the Self. He who meditates only upon the world called the Self never has his work exhausted. From this very Self he projects whatever he wants.
(So) these four castes were projected— the Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya, Vaiśya and Śūdra. They are repeated here together in order to introduce what follows. He, Brahman, the Projector (Virāj), became a Brāhmaṇa among the gods as Fire, and in no other form, and became a Brāhmaṇa among men as the Brāhmaṇa, directly. In the other castes he appeared in a changed form[49]: (He bceame) a Kṣatriya through the
(divine) Kṣatriyas, i.e. being presided over by Indra and other gods; a Vaiśya through the (divine)Vaiśyas[50] and a Śūdra through the (divine) Śūdra.[51] Because Brahman, the Projector, was changed in the Kṣatriya and other castes, and was unchanged in Fire and the Brāhmaṇa, therefore people desire to attain the results of their rites among the gods through fire, i.e. by performing rites connected with it. It is for this purpose that Brahman abides in the form of fire, which is the receptacle in which sacrificial rites are performed. Therefore it stands to reason that people wish to attain results by performing those rites in the fire. And among men as the Brāhmaṇa: If they want human results, there is no need for rites depending on fire etc., but simply by being born as a Brāhmaṇa they attain their life’s ends. And it is only when they desire to attain results that depend on the gods, that they have to resort to rites connected with fire. The Smṛti, too, says, ‘But a Brāhmaṇa may undoubtedly attain perfection through the repetition of sacred formulæ,[52] whether he does other rites (connected with fire) or not. A Brāhmaṇa is one who is friendly to all’ (M. II. 87). Also because the monastic life is open to him only. Therefore people seek to attain the results of their rites, so far as they belong to the human plane, by attaining Brāhmaṇahood. For Brahman, the Projector, was directly in these two forms, the Brāhmaṇa and fire, that are respectively the agent and the receptacle of the rites.
Some[53] explain the passage differently, saying that people wish to realise the world of the Supreme Self by means of fire and the Brāhmaṇa.[54] This is wrong, for the division of castes has been introduced in order to defend the undertaking of rites by people who are under ignorance, and a specification also follows. If the word ‘world’ here refers to the Supreme Self, the specification that follows, viz. ‘Without realising one’s own world (the Self),’ would be meaningless. If the world in question that is prayed for as being dependent on fire, is any other world but the Self, then only the specification by the word ‘own’ would be consistent as refuting that extraneous world. The world that is the Self is always denoted by the words ‘one’s own,’ while those that are created by ignorance can never be ‘one’s own.’ That the worlds attained through rites are not [Page 183] ‘one’s own' is stated by the words, ‘(Those acts) are surely exhausted.’
One may object: Brahman projected the four castes for the sake of ritualistic work. And that work, called righteousness, being obligatory on all, controls all and helps them to achieve their life’s ends. Therefore, if by that work one attains one’s own world called the Supreme Self, although It may be unknown, what is the good of setting It up as the goal? This is being answered: ‘If, however, —the word ‘however’ refutes the prima facie view— anybody, owing to identification with the rites depending on fire, or with the duties belonging to the Brāhmaṇa caste, departs or dies from thistransmigratory, adventitious and extraneous world consisting of the taking up of a body and caused by ignorance, desire and work, without realising his own world called the Self—because It is always one’s own Self—as, ‘I am Brahman,’ It —although It is his own world, yet— being unknown,obstructed by ignorance and therefore virtually becoming extraneous to oneself, does not protect himby removing his evils such as grief, delusion and fear—as the man in the story[55] (the conventional ‘self’) fails to protect himself for not knowing that he is the missing tenth man. As the Vedas not studied do not protect a man by enlightening him on the rites etc., or any other, secular, work, e.g. agriculture, not undertaken, not manifested in its own form, does not protect anybody by bestowing its results, similarly the Supreme Self, although It is one’s [Page 184] own world, on account of not being manifested in Its own form as the eternal Self, does not protect one by destroying one’s ignorance etc.
Objection: What is the good of seeking protection through the realisation of one’s own world, the Self? Since the rites are sure to produce results, and there are a great many rites conducive to beneficent results, the protection that they will afford will be everlasting.
Reply: Not so, for anything made is perishable. This is-being stated: Even if a man, a wonderful genius, who does not know It, his own world, the Self, as such, in the manner described above, continuously performs a great many meritorious acts such as the horse sacrifice, producing only beneficent results, in the world, with the idea that through those alone he will attain eternity, those acts of his, of this ignorant man, being due to desire created by ignorance, are surely exhausted in the end,when he has enjoyed their fruits, like the splendour arising from the fantasy of a dream. They are bound to be perishable, for their causes, ignorance and desire, are unstable. Hence there is no hope whatsoever that the protection afforded by the results of meritorious acts will be eternal. Therefore one should meditate only upon the world of the Self, one’s own world. The word ‘Self’ is here used in an identical sense with the last words, for ‘one’s own world’ is the topic, and here the words ‘one’s own’ are omitted. He who meditates only upon the world of the Self —what happens to him?— never has his work exhausted, simply because he has no work. This is a restatement of an eternal fact. That is to say, an ignorant man continuously suffers from the misery of [Page 185] transmigration by way of exhaustion of the results of his work. Not so this sage. As Emperor Janaka said, ‘If Mithilā is ablaze, nothing of mine is burning' (Mbh. XII. clxxvi. 56).
Some say that the ritualistic work itself of a sage who meditates upon the world of his own Self never decays, because of its combination with meditation. And they interpret the word ‘world’ as inseparably connected with rites in a double aspect: One is the manifested world called Hiraṇyagarbha, which is the repository of ritualistic work, and he who meditates upon this manifested, limited world connected with ritualistic work has his work exhausted, for he identifies himself with the result of limited work. But he who meditates upon that very world connected with work by reducing it to its causal form, the undifferentiated state, does not have his work exhausted, as he identifies himself with the result of unlimited work. This is a nice conceit, but not according to the Śruti, for the words 'one's own world’ refer to the Supreme Self which is under consideration. Also, after introducing It in the words ‘one’s own world’ the text again refers to It by dropping the qualifying phrase 'one’s own’ and using the word ‘Self’ in the sentence, ‘One should meditate only upon the world of the Self.’ So there is no scope for conceiving a world connected with ritualistic work. Another reason for this is the qualification further on by words signifying pure knowledge, ‘What shall we achieve through children, we who have attained this Self, this world (result)?’ (IV. iv. 22). The words ‘this Self our world’[56] mark [Page 186] It off from the worlds attainable through a son, ritualistic work and lower knowledge (meditation). Also, ‘His world is not destroyed by any kind of work’ (Kau. III. 1), and ‘This is its highest world’ (IV. iii. 32). The passage in question ought to have the same import as those just quoted, with the qualifying words. For here also we find the specification ‘one's own world.’
Objection: You are wrong, for the sage desires objects through this. That is to say, if ‘one’s own world’ is the Supreme Self, then by meditating upon It one will become That. In that case it is not proper to mention results apart from the attainment of the Self, as in the passage, ‘From this (very) Self he projects whatever he wants’ (this text).
Reply: Not so, for the passage extols meditation on the world of the Self. The meaning is that the world of the Self alone stands for all that is desirable to him, for he has nothing else but It to ask for, since he has already attained all his objects. Just as another Śruti puts it, 'From the Self is the vital force, from the Self is hope’ (Ch. VII. xxvi. 1). Or the passage may indicate that he is identified with all, as before (I. iv. 10). If he becomes one with the Supreme Self, then only it is proper to use the word ‘Self’ in the phrase ‘from this very Self,’ meaning, ‘from one’s own world, the Self,’ which is the topic. Otherwise the text would have specified it by saying, ‘From the world of work in an undifferentiated state,’ to distinguish it from the world of the Supreme Self as well as from work in a manifested state. But since the Supreme Self has already been introduced (as ‘one’s [Page 187] own world’) and been subsequently specified (by the word ‘Self’), you cannot assume an intermediate state not mentioned in the Śruti.
It has been said that an ignorant man identifying himself with his caste, order of life, and so on, and being controlled by righteousness, thinks he has certain duties to the gods and others and is dependent on them like an animal. Now what are those duties that make him so dependent, and who are the gods and others whom he serves through his actions like an animal? To answer this the text deals with both at length:
This section is now a commentary or further elaboration on the avidya sutram by the Upanisad itself. As avidya sutram deals with karma kanda, the Upanisad talks about varna ashrama. Interesting is there is division of varnas amongst Devas themselves.
Upanisad starts with Agni devata  - in mantra 6- Upanisad had talked about Agni srshti.Here Up says Agni Himself became Brahmana among the Devas. So in swargaloka if you require a priest then Agni devata performs that role.
Hence Rg Veda - Agni Meela Purohitam Yajnasya अग्निमीळे पुरोहितं यज्ञस्य देवं रत्वीजम 
In the mantra the word Brahma va - brahma refers to Agni deva who has become brahmana of the Devas.

He cannot do anything by himself. 
So he created Deva Kshatriya - they've been listed - indro varuṇaḥ somo rudraḥ parjanyo yamo mṛityurīśāna - Indra, Varuṇa, Soma, Rudra, Parjanya, Yama, Death and Iśāna
Now Agni deva blessed the Deva Kshatriyas with Glory and overlordship or Power. He gave the kshatriya power to rule over himself and then Himself gives him respect in the rajasuya yaga by being seated below. Therafter Up gives a warning to the kshatriya - no doubt you have been given power and overlordship - but never ill treat a brahmana - because brahmana alone is your yoni or karanam,

Even after creating deva kshatriya he could still not do anything. naiva vyabhavat. He now created vaishyas. To perform yagnas we need materials - so we need commerce -and hence need for vaishyas. Brahmana requires grains, cow, milk, etc. for yajna and for procuring this vaishya varna was created krishi gaurakshya vanijyam in Gita. These devas are enumerated by Shankara - Those species of gods who are designated in groups. The Vaiśyas abound in groups, for they succeed in acquiring wealth mostly in combination, not singly- The Vasus, a group of eight; similarly the eleven Rudras, the twelve Ādityas, the thirteen Viśvadevas, sons of Viśvā, and the forty-nine Maruts, in seven groups.

And physical labor is needed and so deva shudra is created. Pushaa devata is the deva shudra. Normally pusha is used for surya devata. But here Upanisas reinterprets with a different meaning iyam prthvi or Bhumi devata is Pusha. Thus Prthvi devata becomes Shudra deva. Sarvam pushyati everything is nourished by prthvi alone hence the name Pushanam.

This too was not enough - because among the four the kshatriya is the niyanta or controller. But wherever there is power there is possibility of abuse misuse corruption.there needs to be a controller of kshatriya himself -  kshatrasya kshatram. 

So he created Dharma -yat shreyo rupah Dharma.
Dharma here should not be understood as mere laws of the Universe but it should be taken as Devata of all the laws of the universe. What is the svarupam of Dharma ?> Shreyas. Prosperity, auspiciousness. Wheras everyone will be powerless against Kshatriya but Dharma is baliyaan powerful and can win over Kshatriya. So the powerless can defeat anyone if they have Dharma.
What is satyam - Knowing Jnayamanam according to scripture is Satyam
What is dharma - Doing Anushtanam according to scripture is Dharma

Hence Satyam vada dharmam chara

In 1.4.15 Agni became manushya brahmana. In Kathopanishad when Nachiketas enters Yamas abode he is said to be agni himself. Therafter kshatriyas vaishyas and shudras are created and each of these is presided over by the corresponding devatas. Manushya kshatriya is presided by Varuna, Indra etc and so on

Among the four Brahmana is superior. Here Brahmana refers to gunataha brahmana (- not jati brahmana)
and Agni deva among devas is superior.
Only through Agni and performing karma can humans attain higher lokas. So everyone is dependent on agni devata. Among the manushyas brahmana jaati can get higher loka without depending on agni. With japa alone a Brahmana can attain higher lokas even if he gives up other agni karmas. japye kurya ananyava kurya
Other varnas have to depend on agni.
Brahmana can retain brahmanatvam by just Gayatri japa even if he gives up other agni karmas.
If he gives up Gayatri he loses his brahmana status.

In both worlds Brahmana is the primary srshti - agni came first out of Prajapati and he is sreshta. In manushya also agni became manushya brahmana first and then others were created


Through karma one may attain everything except moksha. Only through jnana moksha can be attained. Hence this section is important.

One who departs from this world asmat lokat prayeti -how svam lokam atma svarupa - the subject of all experiences - adrshtva - without knowing this atma or without selfknowledge
So if a person departs from this world without self knowledge
saha enam na bhunakti he is not protected from samsara..punarapi jananam..
Upanishad presents this in a beautiful manner -who protects you from samsara - atma alone protects a person from samsara. If atma has to protect why it doesnt everyone? Up puts a clause -atma protects a person when it is own viditah atma samsarat rakshati. 
Aviditah na bhunakti. Just like a punya karma that is not done does not protect a person.

If there is a ignorant person - he is certainly not protected by Atma - performs a lot of punya karma - yajna dana tapa etc will that punya itself protect the person - there is a saying dharma rakshati. So let not a person know atma, but can he get protection from hundreds of karmas. Up says even the greatest punya karma cannot protect - it only gives temporary protection, not real protection - for which jnana is required. But indirectly these punya karmas will help. These punya karmas in due course will surely get exhausted and will not give eternal result. Hence only recourse is to come to atma. Jnana phala naiva kshiyate. 

Up also says now that by mere sankalpa the jnani will get whatever he wants. Yo veda nihitam guhayam parame vyoman. Soshnute sarvan kaman saha brahmana vipashchiteti : Taittriya Up

This is arthavada. It is also true to some extent because a jnani does not have any desires for himself and if at all he has desires it is only for lokasamgrah