Sixth Adhyaya, Twelfth Khanda (3 mantras)

Mantra 6.12.1.

1. “Bring a fruit of that Nyagrodha tree.” “Here it is Sir.” ‘Break it’: ‘It is broken sir,’ “What dost thou see there?” “These extremely small seeds, sir.” ‘Break one of these, my dear.’ ‘It is broken sir.’ ‘What dost thou see there?’ ‘Nothing sir.’—456.

Mantra 6.12.2.

2. The father said, “Aly child that Atomic essence (Aṇimāna) which thou perceivest not, of that very essence, this Nyagrodha tree subsists. Believe it so my child.”—457.

Mantra 6.12.3

3. (That highest God is) the Essence and Ruler of all, the desired of all, and known through the subtlest intellect. All this universe, is controlled by him, He pervades it all and is the Good. The God is the destroyer of all and full of perfect qualities. Thou O Śvetaketu art not that God (why then this conceit).

“Please sir, instruct me still more” said the son. “Be it so, my child,” replied the father.—458.

Madhva’s commentary called the Bhāṣya:

Śaṅkara introduces this Khaṇḍa thus:—The purport of the question, which the son is supposed to have asked, is this “How does this gross universe, consisting of the earth, etc., with Names and Forms duly differentiated, proceed from the extremely subtle Pure Being, devoid of all Name and Form? Please explain this to me by means of an illustration.” The reply to this is thus interpreted by Śaṅkara that as from the subtle seed, by modification, the Mighty Nyagrodha tree grows up; so from the modification of the subtle Supreme Self the whole of this universe has come out. But this is incorrect and the explanation is irrelevant, because there is no such idea in any one of the preceding passages and there would be no desire on the part of the son to put such a question. Moreover Sat is Pure Being and it is not even subtle, for subtle and gross are relative terms, and are not applicable to Pure Being. Moreover, it is said there, from that subtle infinitely small (Aṇiman) this Great Nyagrodha tree exists. This shows that the Aṇiman referred to there cannot mean any subtle substance, like the seed. It refers to something which is invisible and not to the seed. In this Khaṇḍa the word Aṇiman is never applied to the seed and where the smallness of the seed is indicated, the word used is Aṇu along with the word Iva “almost.” This shows that Aṇiman is not the seed. The seed no doubt, is the material cause of the tree, and if the teacher meant to instruct that this material cause was the source, then there was no necessity of breaking the seed, and stating that the invisible was the cause. The true question which the son is supposed to have asked is thus set forth by the Commentator:—

The son asks:—“Why is the Supreme Hari not. known as within one’s self, even when one knows the subtle self, namely understands his own Jīva. Why is not the Lord seen as dwelling within the Jīva.” Thus asked Uddālaka replied to his son “as in that almost infinitesimal small seed, the Jīva of the tree possessing the potentiality of causing the growth of that Mighty Nyagrodha tree is not visible, so in the Jīva is not visible the Lord Hari.”

One may look at the seed under the microscope and yet not find the life principle or the Jīva of the tree in it. Similarly an ordinary yogin of atheistic tendency, may come to know the Jīva, but still fail to find the Lord dwelling in it. The word Aṇiman does not apply to the seed, but to the Jīva of the tree.