These two are very important mantras(4&5) for two reasons. One – it attempts to describe Atman. Two – it talks about Shakti.
अनेजदेकं मनसो जवीयो नैनद्देवा आप्नुवन्पूर्वमर्षत् ।
तद्धावतोऽन्यानत्येति तिष्ठत्तस्मिन्नपो मातरिश्वा दधाति ॥ ४ ॥
तदेजति तन्नैजति तद्दूरे तद्वन्तिके ।
तदन्तरस्य सर्वस्य तदु सर्वस्यास्य बाह्यतः ॥ ५ ॥
anejadekaṃ manaso javīyo nainaddevā āpnuvanpūrvamarṣat |
taddhāvato’nyānatyeti tiṣṭhattasminnapo mātariśvā dadhāti || 4 ||
tadejati tannaijati taddūre tadvantike |
tadantarasya sarvasya tadu sarvasyāsya bāhyataḥ || 5 ||
tat – That ; ekam – one ; anejat – unmoving ; manasaḥ – than Mind ; javīyaḥ – swifter ; yasmāt – for ; pūrvam – ever in front ; arṣat – progresses ; devāḥ – Gods ; enat – It ; na – not ; āpnuvan – reach ; tat – That ; tiṣṭhat – standing ; dhāvataḥ – as they run ; anyān – others ; atyeti – passes beyond ; tasmin – in That ; mātariśvā – the Master of Life ; apaḥ – the Waters ; dadhāti – establishes ;
tat – That ; ejati – moves ; tat – That ; na ejati – moves not ; tat – That ; dūre – is far ; tat – That ; u – also ; antike – is near ; etat – That ; asya sarvasya – all this ; antaḥ – within ; tat – That ; u – also ; sarvasya asya – all this ; vāhyataḥ – outside ;
Tanslation:
That non-dual Atman, though never stirring, is swifter than the mind. The senses cannot reach It, for It moves ever in front. Though standing still, It overtakes others who are running. Because of Atman, Vayu, the World Soul apportions the activities of all.
It moves and moves not; It is far and likewise near. It is inside all this and It is outside all this.
Commentary:
Reality is two-fold. All the Upanishads speak of this two-fold aspect of Reality. In the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, we find Sri Ramakrishna asserting this point repeatedly. ‘Brahman and Shakti are identical.’ ‘There is no distinction between Brahman and Shakti.’ ‘Shakti and Shaktiman are identical.’ The fearless explorations of the Upanishad Rishis led them to amazing facts. The world consists of three entities – matter, energy, and consciousness. Are these three independent entities? Or they evolutes and derivatives of one another? Do they have a separate creator? Or are they self-existent and self-explanatory? The Rishis found answers to these interesting questions.
Matter and energy are qualitatively the same. They are two forms of the same entity. Consciousness, however, is independent of matter and energy. Consciousness did not give rise to matter and energy. Neither did energy or matter give rise to consciousness. Matter-energy duality is given a generic name called ‘Prana’ in ancient Hindu terminology. This entity refers to everything that is manifested. Ancient Hindu philosophy refers to this entity by innumerable names – Hiranyagarbha, Prakriti, Prana, Devi, Vayu, Matarishva, Maya, Rayi, etc. Later Hindu philosophy popularised the term ‘Shakti’ for this same entity. Consciousness, on the other hand, had only a couple of terms throughout the long history of Hindu philosophy – Atman, Brahman, Purusha, Tat, and Sah.
There has always been a problem is describing the Atman. There is nothing that is similar to, or compares to, Atman. It is unique and singular. When we describe something, we always refer to something that is similar to it, thereby evoking pictures in the listener’s mind, and leading him onto a conception of what we are describing. Suppose I want to describe an animal that I have seen, but you haven’t yet seen. Look at the process of how I describe it to you.
I have seen a unique animal called ‘Woolly Mammoth’. You see, it is very large, much like an elephant, but much larger than that. While the tusks of an elephant are more or less straight, giving it a benign look, those of the woolly mammoth are very long and curved upwards, giving it a menacing look. The body of the elephant has sparse hair on it. The woolly mammoth, on the other hand, is hirsute in the extreme. Naturally, it would help the woolly mammoth to be hirsute since it lived in the snow-capped north polar regions, and the elephant lives in tropical areas. The body colour of both animals is more or less the same.
I am sure, a more or less rough picture has started forming in your mind about the woolly mammoth.
A similar approach cannot be taken regarding the Atman. There is nothing that compares to Atman, using which, we can describe it. Hence every attempt at describing the Atman in the Upanishads employs either negative language or the language of contradictions. These two mantras are typical examples.
Atman does not move at all, and yet it is faster than the mind! Imagine something that matches this description. The five senses that we possess can never perceive the Atman, since Atman is always one step ahead of the senses. Atman is immobile, always at standstill, and yet it would have overtaken the one who runs fast to reach a place. Before that person reaches his destination, Atman would have already reached there. Atman is both mobile and immobile. Now, this is outright absurd. We cannot imagine of something which is its own opposite! A thing and its opposite are two different things. And yet, the Upanishad says that Atman is near to us and very far away from us, at the same time! Atman is inside everything and simultaneously, is outside everything! Strictly speaking, this description appears to be pure fantasy, like passages from Lewis Carol’s Alice in wonderland.
What are the Rishis achieving by talking like this? This is an effective way of saying that Atman cannot be perceived in our present mode of perception; yet, it exists; and when we alter our state of consciousness, we will perceive Atman.
Further, Atman and the Divine Power creating and preserving this world are identical. Because of Atman, Vayu, the World Soul apportions the activities of all. The way this has been articulated in the mantra, it could appear that Atman and Shakti are two different, but connected entities. Atman exists; and because Atman exists, depending on Atman, or deriving its authority from Atman, Shakti creates and preserves this Phenomenon. The fact however is that there are not two entities – Atman and Vayu. They are the same entity. Their relation is like the snake and its fluid motion; or milk and its white colour; or fire and its burning heat; or word and its meaning. In each of these cases, there seem to be two different things, but both are in fact the same.
Unless Vayu bestows its grace on the person, one will not be able to perceive the Atman, no matter how much one tries. One can pray to Shakti. And Shakti responds to prayers. The whole manifested world is under the suzerainty of Shakti. One may develop a vague mental conception of Atman by rigorous study, but direct perception is a gift of Shakti. The oldest method known in the Upanishads for direct perception of Atman is prayer to Matarishva or Shakti. In the post Buddhist period, when the philosophical school of Advaita Vedanta was developed by Shankara and others, it became popular to rigorously negate everything and thus obtain a direct perception of Atman. In Sri Ramakrishna’s life we saw how this panned out. Tota Puri, an adept in the traditional path of ‘Neti–neti’, taught Sri Ramakrishna the extremely hard spiritual practice. Even Sri Ramakrishna found it difficult to achieve the goal of this sadhana. But, with unprecedented speed, he obtained the direct perception of Atman. Then Sri Ramakrishna realised that the blessed state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi that he had achieved after so much effort was nothing other than the state, he had achieved long ago during his very 1st vision of the Divine Mother Kali! Something that could be so easily achieved through prayer to Mother had been made into something that none but the select few, under almost impossible conditions, could achieve! In this mantra, we get a hint of this spiritual practice that was rejuvenated by Sri Ramakrishna. We can pray to the Personal God of our choice (Vayu) and obtain a direct perception of Atman. This spiritual practice will be explained in more detail in mantras #15 & 16, later on in this Upanishad.