The Brâhmana said: On this, too, they relate this ancient story. Learn now of what description is the institution of the ten sacrificial priests 1. The ear 2, the tongue, the nose, the two feet, the two hands, speech, the genital organ, and the anus, these, verity, are ten sacrificial priests, O beautiful one! Sound, touch, colour, and taste, smell, words, action, motion, and the discharge of semen, urine, and excrement, these are the ten oblations. The quarters, wind, sun, moon, earth and fire, and Vishnu also, Indra, Pragâpati, and Mitra, these, O beautiful one! are the ten fires 3. The ten organs are the makers of the offering; the offerings are ten, O beautiful one! Objects of sense, verily, are the fuel; and they are offered up into the ten fires. The mind is the ladle 4; and the wealth is the pure, highest knowledge} 5. (Thus) we have heard, was the universe duly divided 6. And the mind, which is the instrument
of knowledge, requires everything knowable 1 (as its offering). The mind is within the body the upholder of the frame, and the knower is the upholder of the body 2. That 3 upholder of the body is the Gârhapatya fire; from that another is produced, and the mind which is the Âhavanîya; and into this the offering is thrown. Then the lord of speech was produced 4; that (lord of speech) looks up to the mind. First, verily, are words produced; and the mind runs after them.
The Brâhmana's wife said:
How did speech come into existence first, and how did the mind come into existence afterwards, seeing that words are uttered (after they have been) thought over by the mind? By means of what experience does intelligence come to the mind, and (though) developed, does not comprehend 1? What verily obstructs it?
The Brâhmana said:
The Apâna becoming lord changes it into the state of the Apâna in consequence. That is called the movement of the mind, and hence the mind is in need (of it) 2. But since you ask me a question regarding speech and mind, I will relate to you a dialogue between themselves. Both speech and mind went to the self of all beings 3 and spoke (to him thus), 'Say which of us is superior; destroy our doubts, O lord!' Thereupon the lord positively said to speech, 'Mind (is superior).' But speech thereupon said to him, 'I, verily, yield (you) your desires 4.'
The Brâhmana 1 said:
Know, that (in) my (view), there are two minds 2, immovable and also movable. The immovable, verily, is with me; the movable is in your dominion. Whatever mantra, or letter, or tone goes to your dominion, that indeed is the movable mind 3. To that you are superior. But inasmuch, O beautiful one I as you came personally to speak to me (in the way you did) 4, therefore, O Sarasvatî! you shall never speak after (hard) exhalations 5. The goddess speech, verily, dwelt always between the Prâna and Apâna 6. But, O noble one! going with the Apâna
wind 1, though impelled, (in consequence of) being without the Prâna, she ran up to Pragâpati, saying, 'Be pleased 2, O venerable sir!' Then 3 the Prâna appeared again nourishing speech. And therefore speech never speaks after (hard) exhalation. It is always noisy or noiseless. Of those two, the noiseless is superior to the noisy 4 (speech). This excellent (speech), like a cow, yields milk 5, and speaking of the Brahman it always produces the eternal (emancipation). This cow-like speech, O you of a bright smile! is divine, with divine 6 power. Observe the difference of (its) two subtle, flowing (forms) 7.
The Brâhmana's wife said:
What did the goddess of speech say on that occasion in days of old, when, though (she was) impelled with a desire to speak, words could not be uttered?
The Brâhmana said:
The (speech) which is produced in the body by
means of the Prâna 1, and which then goes into the Apâna, and then becoming assimilated with the Udâna leaves the body 2, and with the Vyâna envelopes all the quarters 3, then (finally) dwells in the Samâna 4. So speech formerly spoke. Hence the mind is distinguished by reason of its being immovable, and the goddess distinguished by reason of her being movable 5.
261:1 Cf. Taittirîya-brâhmana, p. 411, and Âranyaka, p. 281.
261:2 Cf. Brihadâranyaka, p. 459. The reading in the printed edition of Bombay is defective here.
261:3 See p. 337 seq., where all this is more fully explained. And cf. the analogous Buddhistic doctrine stated at Lalita Vistara (Translation by Dr. R. Mitra), p. 11.
261:4 See Taittirîya-âranyaka loc. cit., and cf. Gîtâ, p. 61. 'The wealth' probably means the Dakshinâ to be given to the priests, which is mentioned at Gîtâ, p. 119.
261:5 The 'priests' here being the senses, the knowledge would accrue to them, as to which cf. Gîtâ, p. 108.
261:6 See note 3.
262:1 Each sense can only offer up its own perceptions--the mind offers up all knowledge whatever.
262:2 Arguna Misra says this is an implied simile, the mind is an upholder of the body as the, 'knower' or self is.
262:3 Arguna Misra says this means 'the mind.' I think it better to take it here as the self (see p. 238 supra), to which the 'mind' and the 'other,' mentioned further on, would be subordinate; the 'other' Arguna Misra renders by the 'group of the senses.' The senses are compared to fires at Gîtâ, p. 61. The passage at Taittirîya-âranyaka above cited refers only to the Gârhapatya and Âhavanîya fires. Nîlakantha's text and explanation of this passage are, to my mind, not nearly so satisfactory as Arguna Misra's.
262:4 In the Taittirîya-brâhmana and Âranyaka loc. cit., the equivalent of the original word for 'lord of speech' here occurs, viz. Vâkpati for Vâkaspati here; but that is there described as the Hotri priest, and speech itself as the Vedî or altar. The commentator there interprets 'lord of speech' to mean the wind which causes vocal activity, and resides in the throat, palate, &c. As to mind and speech, see also Khândogya, pp. 285-441, and comments of Sankara there. The meaning of this passage, however, is not by any means clear to my mind. The Dasahotri mantras in the Taittirîya are stated to be the mantras of the Ishti, or sacrifice, performed by Pragâpati for creation. It is possible, then, that the meaning here is, that speech which is to be learnt by the pupil, as stated further on--namely, the Vedas--was first produced from that Ishti (cf. Kullûka on Manu I, 21). But to understand that speech, mind is necessary; hence it is said to look up to the mind. The Brâhmana's, wife, however, seems to understand speech as ordinary speech, hence her question.
263:1 This, again, is to my mind very hard to understand. The original word for 'intelligence' is mati, which at Khândogya, p. 514, Sankara interprets thus: 'intelligence is pondering, application to (literally, respect for) the subject of thought.' The original for 'developed,' Arguna Misra renders by 'mixed or assimilated with;' and 'does not comprehend,' he takes to mean 'does not understand--speech or words.' This question appears to suggested by the last words of the, previous speech.
263:2 These two sentences are again very obscure. Nîlakantha, as usual, deserts his original, giving peculiar meanings to the words without producing any authority. Arguna Misra is very meagre, and besides the MS. is very incorrect. See p. 264, note 5 infra.
263:3 I. e. Pragâpati, says Arguna Misra, which seems to be justified by the sequel. Nîlakantha takes it to mean the individual self, which doubtless is its meaning elsewhere, e.g. Maitrî, p. 56.
263:4 I. e. speech conveys information on all matters, Arguna Misra; p. 264 as the means of acquiring desired fruit, visible or invisible, is learnt by speech, Nîlakantha. Cf. as to all this, Brihadâranyaka-upanishad, pp. 50 seq. and 261.
264:1 I. e. Nîlakantha says, 'the Brâhmana named mind,' alluding apparently to p. 310 infra. But the reading of some of the MSS., viz. Brahman for the Brâhmana, seems preferable, having regard to what follows. Apparently, the Brâhmana's own speech should begin at 'The goddess speech' further on.
264:2 Nîlakantha says, immovable = to be understood by the external senses; movable = not perceptible by senses, such as heaven, &c., which is not quite intelligible. Arguna Misra says, the immovable mind is that of the teacher, which is fixed, as it has not to learn or acquire anything, while that of the pupil is movable as acquiring new impressions and knowledge.
264:3 I. e. it is the movable mind which takes cognisance of the significations of all mantras (sacred texts), letters, tones, in which, I presume, sacred instruction is conveyed. To this mind, speech is superior, as that mind only works on what speech places before it; but the mind which is 'with' Pragâpati, is superior to speech as it is not dependent on speech like the other.
264:4 I. e. proudly, about her being the giver of desires to Brahman.
264:5 I. e., says Arguna Misra, the words will not come out with the Prâna life-wind and convey any sense to the hearer, but will be absorbed down into the Apâna life-wind, and not be articulated as speech at all. Cf. Kaushîtaki, p. 41; Katha, p. 184 (with glosses); and Khândogya, p. 42.
264:6 I. e., I presume, was dependent on the two life-winds named. Cf. p. 353 infra. For this sense of the word 'between,' see p. 258 supra, and Khândogya-upanishad, p. 623.
265:1 And not with the Prâna, so as to be articulated. Cf. p. 264.
265:2 I. e. to withdraw the 'curse' pronounced, as above stated.
265:3 After the curse was withdrawn, says Arguna Misra. Cf. Brihadâranyaka, p. 317.
265:4 Since, says Arguna Misra, noiseless speech is the source of all words--Vânmaya. Perhaps we may compare Aitareya-brâhmana (Haug), p. 47.
265:5 Viz. Vânmaya; milk, as a source of pleasure.
265:6 I. e. enlightening, Arguna Misra. But, perhaps, the translation should be, 'has powers divine and not divine.' As to this, cf. Sânkhya Bhâshya on III, 41, and Sânkhyatattvakaumudî, p. 118, and Wilson's Sânkhya Kârikâ, p. 37 (Sanskrit), and Svetâsvatara, p. 284 (gloss).
265:7 Arguna Mitra refers to a 'Satapatha text' in praise of the subtle speech. I cannot trace the text. But see Nirukta (Roth), pp. 167-187.