HUMAN AND TREE
I Yagnavalkya debate:Brahadarnyaka Upanishad 3 9 28 1 to 7
Verse 3.9.28:
तान्हैतैः श्लोकैः पप्रच्छ—
यथा वृक्शो वनस्पतिस्तथैव पुरुषोऽमृषा ॥
तस्य लोमानि पर्णानि, त्वगस्योत्पाटिका बहिः ॥ १ ॥
tānhaitaiḥ ślokaiḥ papraccha—
yathā vṛkśo vanaspatistathaiva puruṣo'mṛṣā ||
tasya lomāni parṇāni, tvagasyotpāṭikā bahiḥ || 1 ||
28. He asked them through these verses:
(1) As a large tree, so indeed is a man. (This is) true. His hair is its
leaves, his skin its outer bark.
When the Brāhmaṇas were silent, he asked them through the following verses:
As in the world is a large tree —the word ‘Vanaspati’ qualifies the word
‘tree’— so indeed is a man. This is true. His hair is its leaves: A man’s
hair corresponds to the leaves of a tree. His skin is its outer bark.
Verse 3.9.28 (2):
त्वच एवास्य रुधिरं प्रस्यन्दि त्वच उत्पटः ॥
तस्मात्तदतृण्णात्प्रैति रसो वृक्शादिवाहतात् ॥ २ ॥
tvaca evāsya rudhiraṃ prasyandi tvaca utpaṭaḥ ||
tasmāttadatṛṇṇātpraiti raso vṛkśādivāhatāt || 2 ||
(2) It is from his skin that blood flows, and from the bark sap. Therefore,
when a man is wounded, blood flows, as sap from a tree that is injured.
It is from a man’s skin that blood flows, and it is from the bark of a
large tree that sap exudes. Since a man and a large tree thus resemble each
other in all respects, therefore when a man is wounded, blood flows, as sap
from a tree that is injured or cut.
Verse 3.9.28 (3):
मांसान्यस्य शकराणि, किनाट्ं स्नाव, तत्स्थिरम् ॥
अस्थीन्यन्तरतो दारूणि मज्जा मज्जोपमा कृता ॥ ३ ॥
māṃsānyasya śakarāṇi, kināṭṃ snāva, tatsthiram ||
asthīnyantarato dārūṇi majjā majjopamā kṛtā || 3 ||
(3) His flesh is its inner bark, and his sinews its innermost layer of
bark; it is tough. His bones lie under, as does its wood; his marrow is
comparable to its pith.
Similarly, a man’s flesh is the inner bark of a large tree. A man’s sinews
are the innermost layer of bark in a tree, that layer which is under the
inner bark and attached to the wood; it is tough, or strong, like the
sinews. A man’s bones lie under the sinews; similarly, under the innermost
bark is the wood. A man’s marrow is comparable to the pith of a large tree.
There is no difference between the two; they resemble each other.
Verse 3.9.28 (4):
यद्वृक्शो वृक्णो रोहति मूलान्नवतरः पुनः ॥
मर्त्यः स्विन्मृत्युना वृक्णः कस्मान्मूलात्प्ररोहति ॥ ४ ॥
yadvṛkśo vṛkṇo rohati mūlānnavataraḥ punaḥ ||
martyaḥ svinmṛtyunā vṛkṇaḥ kasmānmūlātprarohati || 4 ||
(4) If a tree, after it is felled, springs again from its root in a newer
form, from what root does man spring forth after he is cut off by death?
If a tree, after it is felled, springs again from its root in a newer form,
etc. We have seen that previous to this feature there was complete
similarity between a tree and a man. We notice, however, this peculiarity
in a tree that it springs again after it is felled, while we do not see
that a man cut off by death springs forth again. But there must be a
renascence from some source. Therefore, I ask you, from what root does man
spring forth after he is cut off by death? In other words, whence is a dead
man reborn?
Verse 3.9.28 (5):
रेतस इति मा वोचत, जीवतस्तत्प्रजायते ॥धानारुह इव वै वृक्शोऽञ्जसा प्रेत्य
सम्भवः ॥ ५ ॥
retasa iti mā vocata, jīvatastatprajāyate ||
dhānāruha iva vai vṛkśo'ñjasā pretya sambhavaḥ || 5 ||
(5) Do not say, ‘From the seed,’ (for) it is produced in a living man. A
tree springs also from the seed; after it is dead it certainly springs
again (from the seed as well).
If you say that he springs from the seed, do not say (ṣo), you should not
say so. Why? Because the seed is produced in a living man, not in a dead
man. A tree springs also from the seed, not from the trunk only.—The
particle ‘iva’ is expletive.—A large tree, after it is dead, certainly
sprīngs again from the seed as well.
Verse 3.9.28 (6):
यत्समूलमावृहेयुर्वृक्शं न पुनराभवेत् ॥
मर्त्यः स्विन्मृत्युना वृक्णः कस्मान्मूलात्प्ररोहति ॥ ६ ॥
yatsamūlamāvṛheyurvṛkśaṃ na punarābhavet ||
martyaḥ svinmṛtyunā vṛkṇaḥ kasmānmūlātprarohati || 6 ||
(6) If a tree is pulled out with its root, it no more sprouts, From what
root does a mortal spring forth after he is cut off by death?
If a tree is pulled out with its root or its seed, it no more sprouts.
Therefore, I ask you about the root of the whole universe: From what root
does a mortal spring forth after he is cut off by death?
Verse 3.9.28 (7):
जात एव; न, जायते, को न्वेनं जनयेत्पुनः ॥
विज्ञानमानन्दं ब्रह्म, रातिर्दातुः परायणम्,
तिष्ठमानस्य तद्विद इति ॥ ७ ॥ २८ ॥
इति नवमं ब्राह्मणम् ॥ इति तृतीयो'ध्यायः ॥
jāta eva; na, jāyate, ko nvenaṃ janayetpunaḥ ||
vijñānamānandaṃ brahma, rātirdātuḥ parāyaṇam,
tiṣṭhamānasya tadvida iti || 7 || 28 ||
iti navamaṃ brāhmaṇam || iti tṛtīyo'dhyāyaḥ ||
(7) If you think he is ever born, I say, no, he is again born. Now who
should again bring him forth? —Knowledge, Bliss, Brahman, the supreme goal
of the distributor of wealth as well as of him who has realised Brahman and
lives in It. {KR: The life is same between nature and the human nurtured,
however, birth again has a variation from nature}.
II {Kanchi mutt} [ Vishleshana on human beings and sthaavara jangamaas
like Andaja, Jeevaja and Udbhuja or born out of eggs, reproduction or
sprouts vide Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad as follows:
III.ix.28. Let us compare a human being as a large tree and his hair as the
leaves of the tree and his skin as the tree‘s bark; Just as blood flows
from the person‘s skin so does ‗rasa‘ ooze from the bark and as in the case
of human beings when wounded blood flows a tree when cut, rasa appears(The
human flesh in the inner side of the skin layers and his tendons are tough
as in the case of the innermost sheaths as those in the case of a tree the
interior is tough and strong like the tendons. A man‘s bones lie under as
in the case of a tree‘s wood and a man‘s bone marrow is like the pith of a
tree; indeed they both are alike. If a tree is felled, it springs again
from its root in a newer form; then from which root does the new human form
emerge from! Indeed one cannot say that the new born to emerge from the ‗retas‘
or virility of the one already dead as on the case of a fallen tree! The
reply would be that just as in the case of the seed of a live male human,
the new plant is also sprung from the seed of a tree as well! In the event
that a tree is pulled out from its root or the seed as the case that may
be, it would not sprout; then from which root does a man spring forth after
he is cut off by death? On the analogy of a tree if someone cuts off a tree
with a root or seed, it cannot sprout again. But from which root does a man
is reborn after he is destroyed by death! Thus then it would need to be
justified that the rebirth would be on what basis: would it be ‗Vigjnaanananda
‘or the Bliss of Pure Knowledge, or ‗ ‗Paramaananda‘ or Supreme Bliss (
without body, organ and of ephemeral adjuncts) or Brahman, the be all and
end all! Let us compare a human being as a large tree and his hair as the
leaves of the tree and his skin as the tree ‘s bark. Just as blood flows
from the person ‘s skin so does ‗rasa‘ ooze from the bark and as in the
case of human beings when wounded blood flows a tree when cut, rasa
appears.
The human flesh in the inner side of the skin layers and his
tendons are tough as in the case of the innermost sheaths as those in the
case of a tree the interior is tough and strong like the tendons. A man‘s
bones lie under as in the case of a tree‘s wood and a man‘s bone marrow is
like the pith of a tree; indeed they both are alike. If a tree is felled,
it springs again from its root in a newer form; then from which root does
the new human form emerge from! Indeed one cannot say that the new born to
emerge from the ‗retas‘ or virility of the one already dead as on the case
of a fallen tree! The reply would be that just as in the case of the seed
of a live male human, the new plant is also sprung from the seed of a tree
as well! In the event that a tree is pulled out from its root or the seed
as the case that may be, it would not sprout; then from which root does a
man spring forth after he is cut off by death? On the analogy of a tree if
someone cuts off a tree with a root or seed, it cannot sprout again. But
from which root does a man is reborn after he is destroyed by death! Then
it would need to be justified that the rebirth would be on what basis:
would it be ‗Vigjnaanananda ‘or the Bliss of Pure Knowledge, or ‗
‗Paramananda‘ or Supreme Bliss ( without body, organ and of ephemeral
adjuncts) or Brahman, the be all and end all!
All the dehadhaaris have their bodies as of pancha-agnimaya {KR:
Panchagni vidya is a great samskara for a GURU} being of tejas, krodha,
Chakshu, Ushma and jatharaagni.
The pancha dhatu maya deha as representative of Aakaasha are of the
natives of shrotra-ghraana-chakshus- Mukha- Hridaya and Udara. Then jala
Swarupa panchakaas are kapha-pitta- sveda-vasa and rudhira. Then the pancha
pranaas are as follows: Praana the life energy with which to move about-
vyaana the bala saadhya udyama- apaana as from down ward travelling- samaana
situated at the heart and udaana from the ucchvaasa kantha- and
ucchaaranaas. Now gandha-sparsha-rasa-rupa-shabda are the prithvi gunaas to
be explained. These Tanmatra, the subtle elements, are the objects of the
five senses. viz. sound, touch, form, taste, and odour or smell; the five
senses are hearing, tactile perception, vision, taste, and smell. The
Tanmatra are the ways in which the objective world is sensed as of
anukula-pratikuula-
mathura-katu- saadhaarana. Thus, for sthaavara jangamaas too as in respect
of human beings, the impact of Pancha Bhutas be evidenced similarly as
much.]
Chandogya also speaks similarly which we will see later K R IRS 4424
--
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 on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZookQPzu2dUK9gg7ZoeH9m%2B9cmZgaufibGMoLJ6Jb2iBWg%40mail.gmail.com.
