CH 8 of the Upanisads. - A conversation between Gārgi and Yājñavalkya.
Question 1: "The things above the sky, the things below the earth and the sky, as well as all those things between the earth and sky, as well as past, present, and future- on what are all these woven back and forth?"
His Answer: THEY ARE WOVEN ON SPACE.
Question 2: "on what is space woven?"
His Answer: "the imperishable. which is neither course nor fine, short nor long. Has neither blood nor fat. is without shadow or darkness, without air or space. without contact; has no taste or smell; it is without sight or hearing; it is without energy, breath or mouth... at its command the sun and the moon stand apart...pitiful is the man who departs from this world without knowing this imperishable. on this imperishable space is woven."
After this answer, Gārgi says that Yājñavalkya can never be defeated in a theological debate.
My thoughts: what is it that Yājñavalkya said that makes him undefeated in a theological debate? The answers he gave were vague and they weren't a concrete answers. How can the past, present, and future be "woven" into space? How can you weave time? Also, how can you weave space onto something? Yājñavalkya goes on to say that this imperishable is without space, but if space is woven into it then doesn't it in fact have space? How can you weave something onto something that is not supposed to be perceived or thought of ? Is the imperishable supposed to be the creator god ? Yājñavalkya also explains the imperishable as the one who commands the sun and the moon to stand apart, commands seconds, minutes, hours, night, and fortnights ? who can do this but the creator?
Great post! I want to draw your attention to a book called The Character of the Self in Ancient India by Brian Black. In it, he comments on Yājñavalkya: "Comparable to Socrates in Plato’s dialogues, Yåjñavalkya does not always win because of the logic of his arguments or his overall knowledge. Rather, Yåjñavalkya claims his authority as much by how he makes his arguments, and by how he employs other means, such as humor, insult, and intimidation, to silence his opponents. In another similarity with Socrates, he does not always initially give his best answer to the questions put to him, but only reveals his more charac- teristic discourses when he is threatened by his opponents. In the following examples, we will see that Yåjñavalkya’s knowledge is to be found not merely in the consistency of his discourse, but also in his ability to out-talk his opponents. As such, Yåjñavalkya’s knowledge is often depicted as both situational and tactical" (Black, Character of the Self in Ancient India, 76). Part of what's happening here has to do with the context of the debate the two are engaging in. Black has a nice little five page section on Yājñavalkya's exchange with Gārgī. I've posted the PDF on Moodle; take a look at it if you want, and we can talk more about this next week when we read some more Upanishads.
ReplyDelete