The passage divided people. Is Ashvapati's answer really relevant to the question? Is it satisfactory? Is the story too artificial? Others felt that there were attractive passages, for example this reflection on the fire sacrifice:
When Prana becomes satisfied the eye becomes contented;
when the eye becomes satisfied the sun becomes contented;
when the sun is satisfied the heaven becomes contented;
when heaven becomes satisfied, then whatever is rules over by heaven and the sun becomes contented.
After that is satisfied, the eater himself becomes contented with progeny, animals, edible food, bodily lustre and the light of knowledge.
Echoes here for me of Tintern Abbey, "with an eye made quiet / By the power of harmony and the deep power of joy / We see into the life of things"
It's interesting to compare this section to that immediately preceding it, V 3-10 - another story in which a kshatriya teaches a brahmana. In this earlier story the point is very strongly made that what is taught (reincarnation) "was never known among the brahmanas before; therefore in all the worlds the kshatriyas have been the teachers". Reincarnation was evidently a novel concept at this stage. There is no doubt that some of the Upanishadic ideas must have been developed among kshatriya circles, because of course the brahmanas who preserved the Upanishads are supposed to be the ones with all the knowledge.
Our feeling is that these sections are somewhat less sophisticated. Hard to say whether they are more primitive, or decadent, or a parallel development. My inclination is to believe that a story like the one we looked at today is at an early stage. Ritual is still key, but the internal state is coming to be seen as more important than the actual performance:
Anyone who performs the fire-sacrifice without knowing this [ie about the self], his sacrifice will be like someone who discards the embers and offers in the ashes.
This represents a step on the journey towards the Atman.
No comments:
Post a Comment