Aithreya Mahidasa a rishi spoke about science any where in 3000 to 10000
years before, even before many philosophers of the earth even before Buddha
and the Aristotle.
Aitreya upanishad speaks of
oṃ vāṅ me manasi pratiṣṭhitā mano me vāci pratiṣṭhita māvirāvīrma
edhi vedasya ma āṇīsthaḥ śrutaṃ me mā ahāsīranenādhītenāhorātrān
saṃdadhāmyṛtaṃ vadiṣyāmi satyaṃ vadiṣyāmi tanmāmavatu
tadvaktāramavatvavatu māmavatu vaktāramavatu vaktāram oṃ śāntiḥ
śāntiḥ śāntiḥ
My speech is established in mind, and my mind is established in speech. May
you manifest, may you manifest! May the truth of the Vedas heard by me not
leave me. For days and nights, I will reflect on the divine law and the
truth. May I become established in the truth, and may the teacher be
established in truth. May the truth protect me, and may the truth protect
the teacher - may truth protect the teacher! Peace, peace, peace.
Verse 1-3-4
tatprāṇenājighṛkṣat tannāśaknotprāṇena grahītuṃ sa
yaddhainatprāṇenāgrahaiṣyadabhiprāṇya haivānnamatrapsyat
*He tied to grasp that food with the sense of smell. He did not succeed in
grasping it by smelling. If He had succeeded in grasping it by smelling,
then everyone should have become contented merely by smelling food.*
tannāśaknoccakṣuṣā grahītun sa yaddhainaccakṣuṣā'grahaiṣyaddṛṣṭvā
haivānamatrapsyat
*He wanted to take up the food with the eye. He did not succeed in taking
it up with the eye. If He had taken it up with the eye, then one would have
become satisfied by merely seeing food.*
tannāśaknocchrotreṇa grahītuṃ sa yaddhainacchroteṇāgrahaiṣyacchrutvā
haivānnamatrapsyat
*He wanted to take up the food with the ear. He did not succeed in taking
it up with the ear. If He had taken it up with the ear, then one would have
become satisfied by merely by hearing of food.*
Tannāśaknottvacā grahītuṃ `sa yaddhainattvacā'grahaiṣyat spṛṣṭvā
haivānnamatrapsyat
*He wanted to take it up with the sense of touch. He did not succeed in
taking it up with the sense of touch. If He had taken it up with touch,
then one would have become been satisfied merely by touching food.*
Tannāśaknonmanasā grahītuṃ sa yaddhainanmanasā'grahaiṣyaddhyātvā
haivānnamatrapsyat
*He wanted to take it up with the mind. He did not succeed in taking it up
with the mind. If He had taken it up with the mind, then one would have
become satisfied by merely thinking of food.*
Tannāśaknocchiśnena grahītuṃ sa yaddhainacchiśnenāgrahaiṣyadvitsṛjya
haivānamatrapsyat
*He wanted to take it up with the procreative organ. He did not succeed in
taking it up with the procreative organ. If He had taken it up with the
procreative organ, then one would have become satisfied by merely ejecting
food.*
Tadāvayat saiṣo'nnasya graho yadvāyuranāyurvā eṣa yadvāyuḥ
*He wanted to take it up with Apana. He caught it. This is the devourer of
food. That vital energy which is well known as dependent of food for its
subsistence is this vital energy (called Apana).*
īkṣata kathaṃ nvidaṃ madṛte syāditi sa
īkṣata katareṇa prapadyā iti sa īkṣata
yadi vācā'bhivyāhṛtaṃ yadi
prāṇenābhiprāṇitaṃ yadi cakṣuṣā dṛṣṭaṃ
yadi śrotreṇa śrutaṃ yadi tvacā
spṛṣṭaṃ yadi manasā dhyātaṃ yadyapānenābhyapānitaṃ
yadi śiśnena visṛṣṭamatha ko'hamiti
He thought, "How indeed can it be there without Me?" He thought, "Through
which of the two ways should I enter?" He thought, "If utterance is done by
the organ of speech, smelling by the sense of smell, seeing by the eye,
hearing by the ear, feeling by the sense of touch, thinking by the mind,
the act of drawing in (or pressing down) by Apana, ejecting by the
procreative organ, then who (or what) am I?"
Etameva sīmānaṃ vidaryaitayā dvārā prāpadyata saiṣā vidṛtirnāma
vāstadetannā'ndanam
Tasya traya āvasathāstrayaḥ svapnā ayamāvasatho'yamāvasatho'yamāvasatha iti
Having split up this very end, He entered through this door. This entrance
is known as vidriti (the chief entrance). Hence it is delightful. Of Him
there are three abodes - three (states of) dream. This one is an abode,
this one is an abode. This one is an abode.
The living and the dead
8.1. Mahidasa explained, a living organism is a system that is divisible
into a number of component systems. Each member is perfect in its place;
but it is useless while out of place (AA 1.5.1.7). Besides, each member has
a distinct place, function or purpose of its own. It is so peculiar to it
that no other member can take its place. Each member in a living body
exercises its own functions independently; and also in harmony and
co-operation with other members (AA 2.4.3.6). {KR Science}
8.2. And, yet all their functions are of relevance only when the unity of
the whole organization is maintained by the vital principal Prana. The term
Prana, air or breath connotes that the working of the systems depends
ultimately on the vital breath. He seems to suggest that the functions of
the body such as eating, digestion etc all need the presence of air (AA
2.1.4.9-15). Mahidasa also says all members of an organization are not
absolutely essential for its mere existence so long as there is Prana.
8.3. He pointed out that a living organism must be sharply distinguished
from a dead body because a body without life joined to it is but a decaying
corpse (sarira), whereas a living body is a self generating mechanism of
nature. It is born perpetually, replacing the dead particles (anu) all the
while (AA. 2.1.4.11). Thus , according to Mahidasa, in order to
participate in what is called ‘life’ the relation between members in a
living organism should not only be that of mere physical contact but should
also be that of physiological connection. That is to say, each member of
the organization must be animated by the same principle (Prana) and
stimulated into activity by the same motive.
Man and Universe
9.1. Mahidasa conceived Man as a microcosm, a miniature universe: “whatever
there is belonging to the son belongs to the father; whatever there is
belonging to the father belongs to the son” (Aitareya Aranyaka: 2.3.1.1).
What is true in respect of man is also true of the universe. The finite
thing of experience is not only a part of the whole but is in essence the
whole itself. ‘I as a living nomad am the universe’. (More of that in the
next part)
9.2. The main concern of Mahidasa was the search for the central essence of
Man; as also the essence of the Universe. The two independent streams of
thought – one driven by the desire to realize the true nature of man; and ,
the other, to understand the objective world – became fused. The blending
of the two apparently dissimilar concerns led him to his outlook. He tried
to understand and express the world in terms of the individual and his
place in it.
9.3. The major problems that Mahidasa tried to grapple were the origin of
life and the development of consciousness. The following explanation on
the Aitareya Upanishad is said to be based on his teachings:
‘This which is known as the heart, this mind, mastering knowledge of arts,
comprehension, power of retaining import of scriptures, perception,
fortitude, reflection, independent power of thinking, distress of mind
caused by diseases, etc., memory, volition, application, any pursuit for
maintenance of life, desire for the company of women, all these are,
indeed, names of Consciousness’.
‘This Brahman; this Indra; this creator; all these gods; these five great
elements; all these small creatures; these others; the seeds of creation,
these egg-born, the womb-born, sweat-born, sprout-born, horses, cows, men,
elephants, whatever else which breathes and moves and flies, or is
immovable, all these are guided by Consciousness and are supported by
Consciousness. The universe has Consciousness for its guide. Consciousness
is the basis or stay of all.
‘Verily, consciousness is Brahman: Prajnanam Brahma’.
बीजानीतराणि चेतराणि चाण्डजानि च जारुजानि च स्वेदजानि चोद्भिज्जानि चाश्वा
गावः पुरुषा हस्तिनो यत्किञ्चेदं प्राणि जङ्गमं चपतत्रि च यच्च स्थावरं सर्वं
तत्प्रज्ञानेत्रं प्रज्ञाने प्रतिष्ठितं प्रज्ञानेत्रो लोकः प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठा
प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म ॥ ऐतरेय उपिनषत् ३.३ ॥
**
9.3. Mahidasa was not given to flights of fantasy. He was analytical in his
approach. That is commendable when one considers that Indian ‘philosophy’
was then just passing out of infancy. He preceded the Buddha by at least
600 to 800 years.
The scholars from west too recognize that Mahidasa compares favorably with
Aristotle. The problems they point out with Mahidasa are in his use of
‘nomenclatures’ or terms that are not quite easy to follow; and lack of
methodical treatment to his subjects. But, all acknowledge that his
concepts and his understanding of nature and life were brilliant; and,
Mahidasa was far ahead of his times.
His vision of treating Man as miniature universe; assertion that something
can only come out of something and not out of nothing; bridging relations
between root and shoot, cause and effect; notions of perpetual change and
motion; the proposition that the motion or the energy that brings about
changes in the matter is something other than matter; and his belief that
‘organic things’ too are endowed with life and sensations – all these found
place in the doctrines of Samkhya and other Schools of thought (including
Buddhism) centuries after his time. Mahidasa was without doubt a pioneer in
the development of Indian thought.
K Rajaram IRS 171124
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoqXGzSJ8hcLyH-FqEsDS081O1rfrTp40Dv1CuZ3cWeXLw%40mail.gmail.com.
