Aruni speaks to Svetaketu

Chandogyopanishad

Part 1: The Genesis

This is in the form of a dialogue between the teacher and disciple, Aruni the father as teacher and his son Svetaketu as the student.  At the age of twelve years,  Svetaketu under the instruction of his father Aruni devoted twelve years studying all the Vedas. This was in line with keeping the family tradition intact and vibrant.  All members of the family had been highly educated and learned.  Svetaketu attained proficiency in his subject and earned good fame.  However, he developed some arrogance as well and this was noticed by his father.  He considered himself to be superior to all other scholars. Aruni was not comfortable with the attitude of his son.

‘Svetaketu lacks in humbleness and simplicity that is necessary for an acclaimed learned person.  It is my duty as a father to introduce finer values to my son. This is quite unbecoming of a learned person from our family.  He does not meet our dynastic standards’.

“I would like to ask a few questions in relation to your schooling in the scriptures of the Vedas, my Dear son, Svetaketu!

“My Dear! I would like to know what special lesson have you received from your teacher. Did you learn that lesson by which the Unknown becomes known, the Unheard becomes heard and the Unthinkable can be made thinkable?

“I want you to understand my viewpoint quite seriously, Dear son! What is the use of hearing something that can be heard? What is the use of thinking something that can be thought? And after all, what is the use of such learning?  What use of learning that can be learnt? This can be done by even a moron, a commoner an ordinary fellow.  Every man on the street can do this. Why have you spared twelve precious years?

“I would like to know if you have prayed to your Master to impart you such a special lesson that generally is not talked about, not discussed in the circles of the educated lot. None else but only a Master can grant you such wisdom!”

Aruni paused a while to continue:

“We as a family hold onto this type of a standard.  This is our ‘Adesha’ (hallmark) of learning! You cannot see us compromising.

“My Dear son! How is it that there is conceit in addition to sign of arrogance that you display?  Are these exceptional?”

Aruni utters his words in a firm tone.

 

Note: What is the use of learning something that can be learnt?  It is a wastage! Even if all the Vedas are learnt, it is of no value unless one gathers the essence of learning. The approach of Aruni has been scathing but logically unchallengeable and practically undeniable. The concerned father was shaking up inner conscience of his beloved son. His son has entered into the comfort zone of learning just as a parrot.  He is mechanical. This is grave situation.  Tone of Aruni was mild and it reflected the deep concern for the spiritual welfare of  Svetaketu.   Aruni would not like to see that his son takes pride in superficial knowledge. Shallow knowledge is a drag.  

The assertion made by Aruni motivated Svetaketu to introspect. 

 

On introspection Svetaketu was shaken. He could see that there is something missing in his learning. Something serious wrong. His inner eye is opening up. He got some clarity in vision.

“My dear Sir!  What is that learning? How does that learning proceed?”   

 “My Dear son! It is not very difficult. Please pay attention to what I say.

“The essence has to be grasped in its entirety. It makes the whole process of learning quick and perfect.  It is like knowing a clod of clay (cause).  By knowing the true nature of a clod, all the earthen wares (products, effects) are known.  Why to learn each clay pot individually? Is it possible and practical? Just work on the cause, effects will be known”.

The boy is a bit confused, though his interest is growing. How is it possible that by knowing a clod of clay, all earthen pots are learnt?

 

Note: In today’s parlance, this method is somewhat similar to ‘sampling’.  A student of medicine cannot study each individual body. One sample is enough to learn human anatomy. But here it is not an issue of sampling.  It is a search for the essence.  In fact, it is a search for the essence of all essence.      

This may be one of the standard sources of the well-known theory of ‘cause and effect’ (karya-karana bhava) that we see in Darshana  Shastras.  Authentic Upanishads are older scriptures than Darshanas. 

 

Svetaketu asks his father, “Respected Sir, there exists an apparent difference between a clod of clay and a pot made of clay. The difference of name and form is for real”.

Aruni, “Your question contains the answer. Name and form are real, but not the Truth. Name and form are transient. Lump of clay is the Truth, unchangeable and eternal.

“I am for knowing the cause, rather than knowing the effect.

“Yes, you would be right only if the causes of a products were different”. 

 

Note: This is the standard Vedantic position: ‘a product is non-different from its cause’.  This school is bent upon proving one thing: ‘Everything is Brahman’.

The schools of dualism (Dvaita-vadins) such as Samkhya-Yoga do not subscribe to this idea of monistic Vedanta. They say that every soul is different. Samkhya has some arguments one of which is as follows: ‘when a person is in pain, all others are not in pain. When one individual attains Apavarga (spiritual freedom), others around him do not experience the same’.  

 

Svetaketu, “Dear Sir, I realize that I have missed this lesson in the school. Please teach me”. 

Aruni, “In the beginning, My Dear, there was this Being, Sat, one without a second. This is one opinion. Others say that ‘in the beginning, there was one A-sat, non-Being, non-identifiable Being’. (As per Vedanta, it is Consciousness). 

“Hence all of this in creation is merely a modification of Sat (or A-sat).

“Or from A-sat, Sat was born.  And then from this Sat entire perceptible creation came into existence”.

Svetaketu, “How come that from A-sat (non-entity) this Sat (entity) is born?  This sounds illogical”.

Aruni: I must say that Sat eternal.   

 

Note:  a) What is meant by ‘Sat or A-sat was in the beginning’.  Does it imply that the Being is no more there?   Moreover, the Being has a beginning, if so, then it must have an end too since beginning (and end) are qualifications attached to Sat.  Is not Sat free of qualifications?

Even at this moment, it is Being (Sat).  Because Sat is eternal.  It is just like in the state of deep sleep, one remains conscious of Being alone as the only entity. At the end of sleep, one becomes aware of existence around.  It is to say that A-sat does not mean non-existence.

Quite ordinary language of ordinary world has been used here.  A man passes through a village and sees the potter preparing clay to make various earthen wares in the morning. When the man returns in the evening, he sees pots, saucers and jars. Does it mean that the clay has disappeared? Does one say that all these earthen pots were not present at all or not present in the morning? 

b) What is to be derived from the emphatic terms ‘it was one and one only’ and ‘without a second’?

Emphatic tone is used to deny any possibility of accessories or associates or tools in the evolvement of the universe.  In other words there was no-existence of material cause and efficient cause.

 

            Aruni: ‘That’ (Brahman) wished ‘May I multiply, may I grow on’. Thus it created fire.  It again wished to multiply. Water was produced. Further it produced food.

           

            Note:  There is no nonexistence. ‘A-sat’ is explained above.  ‘Swapna-vat’—entire phenomenal creation is a matter of mere imagination. Just as clay grows into jar and pot, just as a rope grows into a serpent, so is the created world.  All that is perceived is unreal and non-existent. What is asserted is that it is Being itself which is being perceived in a form other than its own (Brahman). 

In the Taittiriyopanishad it is said that Akasha was created at first. But in this scripture fire is the first product. This is contradictory.

There is no contradiction.  It is possible to interpret the present text to mean, that It created Fire, after the creation of Akasa and Air (and thus all the texts become reconciled).  Or, the order of sequence in the creation is not what is meant to be asserted here; all that is meant to be asserted is that ‘all this is the product of Being  and hence, all is Being (Sat) alone, one, without a second’. That this is so meant is clear from the example of clay that has been cited.  Or, what is meant to be asserted is the doctrine of  ‘Triplication’.  Hence the present text speaks only of Fire, Water and Food.

A plain story will follow to elaborate the contention above.