(25) But the organ is not the only requisite to vision or to perception of any kind: there must be a state of the soul inclining it towards the sphere of sense.

Now it is the soul's character to be ever in the Intellectual sphere, and even though it were apt to sense-perception, this could not accompany that intention towards the highest; to ourselves when absorbed in the Intellectual, vision and the other acts of sense are in abeyance for the time; and, in general, any special attention blurs every other. The desire of apprehension from part to part- a subject examining itself- is merely curiosity even in beings of our own standing, and, unless for some definite purpose, is waste of energy: and the desire to apprehend something external- for the sake of a pleasant sight- is the sign of suffering or deficiency.

Smelling, tasting flavours may perhaps be described as mere accessories, distractions of the soul, while seeing and hearing would belong to the sun and the other heavenly bodies as incidentals to their being. This would not be unreasonable if seeing and hearing are means by which they apply themselves to their function.

But if they so apply themselves, they must have memory; it is impossible that they should have no remembrance if they are to be benefactors, their service could not exist without memory.

(3) He who, dwelling in speech, yet is other than speech, whom the speech does not know, whose body the speech is, who controls the speech from within — He is your Soul, the Inner Controller, the Immortal. 1 8. He who, dwelling in the eye, yet is other than the eye, whom the eye does not know, whose body the eye is, who controls the eye from within — He is your Soul, the Inner Con- troller, the Immortal.

(2) For where there is a duality (dvaita), as it were (iva\ there one sees another; there one smells another; there one hears another; there one speaks to another; there one thinks of another; there one understands another. Where, verily, everything has become just one's own self, then whereby and whom would one smell? then whereby and whom would one see? then whereby and whom would one hear? then whereby and to whom would one speak? then whereby and on whom would one think? then whereby and forth whom would one understand? Whereby would one under- stand him by whom one understands this All? Lo, whereby would one understand the understander? '

(4) It is — as the uniting-place of all waters is the sea, like- wise the uniting-place of all touches is the skin; likewise the uniting-place of all tastes is the tongue; likewise the uniting- place of all odors is the nose; likewise the uniting-place of all forms is the eye; likewise the uniting-place of all sounds is the ear; likewise the uniting-place of all intentions is the mind; 1 A designation of the Atharva-Veda. likewise the uniting-place of all knowledges is the heart; like- wise the uniting-place of all actions is the hands; likewise the uniting-place of all pleasures is the generative organ; likewise the uniting-place of all evacuations is the anus; likewise the uniting-place of all journeys is the feet; likewise the uniting- place of all Vedas is speech.

(4) For where there is a duality, as it were, there one sees another; there one smells another; there one tastes another; there one speaks to another; there one hears another; theie one thinks of another; there one touches another; there one understands another. But where everything has become just one's own self, then whereby and whom would one see? then whereby and whom would one smell? then whereby and whom would one taste? then whereby and to whom would one speak? then whereby and whom would one hear? then whereby and of whom would one think? then whereby and whom would one touch? then whereby and whom would one understand? whereby would one understand him by means of whom one understands this All? That Soul (Atman) is not this, it is not that (neti, neti). It is unseizable, for it can not be seized; indestructible, for it can not be destroyed; unattached, for it does not attach itself; is unbound, does not tremble, is not injured. Lo, whereby would one understand the understander? Thus you have the instruction told to you, Maitreyl. Such, lo, indeed, is immortality.' After speaking thus, Yajnavalkya departed, 1 La

(15) Presiding over the ear and the eye, the organs of touch, taste, and smell, and also over the mind, he experiences sense-objects.

(2) These two [sense-organs] here [i. e. the ears] are Gotama and Bharadvaja. This is Gotama and this is Bharadvaja. These two here [i. e. the eyes] are VisVamitra and Jamadagni. This is VisVamitra. This is Jamadagni. These two here[L e. the nostrils] are Vasishtha and Kas"yapa. This is Vasishtha. This is Kas"yapa. The voice is Atri, for by the voice food is eaten (*/ad). Verily, eating (at~ti) is the same as the name 1 A very similar stanza is found at AV. 10. 8. 9. Atri. He who knows this becomes the eater of everything; everything becomes his food.

(3) [Sakalya said:] 'Verily, he who knows that Person whose abode is space (akasa), whose world is the ear, whose light is mind, who is the last source of every soul — he, verily, would be a knower, O Yajfiavalkya.' whom you speak. This very person who is in hearing and who is in echo is He. Tell me, Sakalya, who is his god? '

(3) He who, dwelling in the ear, yet is other than the ear, whom the ear does not know, whose body the ear is, who controls the ear from within— He is your Soul, the Inner Con- troller, the Immortal.

(1) Death said: 'The Self-existent pierced the openings (of the senses) so that they turn forward: therefore man looks forward, not backward into himself. Some wise man, however, with his eyes closed and wishing for immortality, saw the Self behind.'

(6) The Eye went off. Having remained away a year, it came back and said: ' How have you been able to live without me?' They said: ' As the blind, not seeing with the eye, but breathing with breath, speaking with speech, hearing with the ear, knowing with the mind, procreating with semen. Thus have we lived.' The eye entered in.

(3) [Sakalya said:] * Verily, he who knows that Person whose abode is forms (rupd), whose world is the eye, whose light is mind, who is the last source of every soul he, verily, would be a knower, O Yajnavalkya.' whom you speak. That very person who is in the sun is He. Tell me, Sakalya, who is his god? ' 'Truth/ said he.

(7) He who understands all and who knows all, he to whom all this glory in the world belongs, the Self, is placed in the ether, in the heavenly city of Brahman (the heart). He assumes the nature of mind, and becomes the guide of the body of the senses. He subsists in food, in close proximity to the heart. The wise who understand this, behold the Immortal which shines forth full of bliss.

(115) And when that same spirit, which is generated in the body, seeth anything through the eyes, or heareth through the ears, or smelleth through the nostrils, then it is already in that thing, and works, laboureth or acteth therein, as in its own propriety.

(1) Verily, at that time the world was undifferentiated. It became differentiated just by name and foim, as the saying is: differentiated just by name and form, as the saying is: ' He has such a name, such a form.' He entered in here, even to the fingernail-tips, as a razor would be hidden in a razor-case, or fire in a fire-holder.' Him they see not, for [as seen] he Is incomplete. When breathing, he becomes breath (prdnd) by name; when speaking, voice; when seeing, the eye; when hearing, the ear; when thinking, the mind: these are merely the names of his acts. Whoever worships one or another of these — he knows not; for he is the earliest occurrence of a favorite simile of the later Vedanta; cf. for example, £ankara on the Brahma-Sutras 3. 2. 6 ' as fire is latent in firewood or in covered embers.* But the meaning of m&vambJiara is uncertain. Etymologically the word is a compound signifying * all-bearing.' As such it is an unambiguous appellation of the earth at AV 12. I 6. The only other occurrence of its adjectival -use that is cited in BR. is AV. 2. 16. 5, where the commentator substantiates his rendering the meaning ( fire ' (A V Tr. p. 60-61), and in his criticism of Bohtlingk's translation of this Upamshad (AJP n. 432) suggests that ' vtivambhara may perhaps here mean some kind of insect, in accordance with its later use,' and * since the point of comparison is the invisibility of the things encased ' proposes the translation * or as a vitvambhara in a vtfvam&kara-uest. But Professor Lanman adds to Whitney's note on AV. a. 16. 5 (AV, Tr. p. 60- j); 'I think, nevertheless, that fire may be meant.' The same simile recurs at Kaush. 4. 20. incomplete with one or another of these. One should worship with the thought that he is just one's self (atman\ for therein all these become one That same thing, namely, this self, is the trace (fadaniyd) of this All, for by it one knows this All. Just as, verily, one might find by a footprint (^r),thus— - He finds fame and praise who knows this.

(4) When this self comes to weakness and to confusedness of mind, as it were, then the breaths gather around him. He takes to himself those particles of energy and descends into the heart. When the person in the eye turns away, back [to the sun], then one becomes non-knowing of forms.

(4) 'The senses they call the horses, the objects of the senses their roads. When he (the Highest Self) is in union with the body, the senses, and the mind, then wise people call him the Enjoyer.'

(1) * Three he made for himself Mind, speech, breath — these he made for himself. People say: ' My mind was elsewhere; I did not see. My rnind was elsewhere; I did not hear. It is with the mind, truly, that one sees. It is with the mind that one hears. Desire, imagination, doubt, faith, lack of faith, steadfastness, lack of steadfastness, shame, meditation, fear — all this is truly mind. Therefore even if one is touched on his back, he discerns it with the mind. Whatever sound there is, it is just speech. Verily, it comes to an end [as human speech]; verily, it does not [as the heavenly voice]. The in-breath, the out-breath, the diffused breath, the up-breath, the middle-breath — all this is just breath. Verily, the self (dtman) consists of speech, mind, and breath.

(2) Now, with reference to the self. — Just that is the formed [Brahma] which is different from breath (frdna) and from the space which is within the sell (atman). This is mortal, this is stationary, this is actual. The essence of this formed, mortal, stationary, actual [Brahma] is the eye, for it is the essence of the actual.

(7) Consider the act of ocular vision:

There are two elements here; there is the form perceptible to the sense and there is the medium by which the eye sees that form. This medium is itself perceptible to the eye, distinct from the form to be seen, but the cause of the seeing; it is perceived at the one stroke in that form and on it and, hence, is not distinguished from it, the eye being held entirely by the illuminated object. When on the contrary this medium presents itself alone it is seen directly- though even then actual sight demands some solid base; there must be something besides the medium which, unless embracing some object, eludes perception; thus the light inherent to the sun would not be perceived but for the solidity of the mass. If it is objected that the sun is light entire, this would only be a proof of our assertion: no other visible form will contain light which must, then, have no other property than that of visibility, and in fact all other visible objects are something more than light alone.

So it is with the act of vision in the Intellectual Principle.

This vision sees, by another light, the objects illuminated by the First Principle: setting itself among them, it sees veritably; declining towards the lower Nature, that upon which the light from above rests, it has less of that vision. Passing over the visible and looking to the medium by which it sees, then it holds the Light and the source of Light.

But since the Intellectual-Principle is not to see this light as something external we return to our analogy; the eye is not wholly dependent upon an outside and alien light; there is an earlier light within itself, a more brilliant, which it sees sometimes in a momentary flash. At night in the darkness a gleam leaps from within the eye: or again we make no effort to see anything; the eyelids close; yet a light flashes before us; or we rub the eye and it sees the light it contains. This is sight without the act, but it is the truest seeing, for it sees light whereas its other objects were the lit not the light.

It is certainly thus that the Intellectual-Principle, hiding itself from all the outer, withdrawing to the inmost, seeing nothing, must have its vision- not of some other light in some other thing but of the light within itself, unmingled, pure, suddenly gleaming before it;