Katha Upanishadha or Kathopnishadha 1.2.1
The story goes on.
Dogged and firm, Nachiketa coaxes Yama to answer his key query in verse 1.1.20: “When a person dies, a doubt arises. Some say, ‘he continues to exist,’ others say, ‘he doesn’t.’ Kindly clarify, requests Nachiketa.
In the following chapter, mantra 1.2.1, Yama begins his wisdom verse:
“The virtuous/righteous/(Śreyas) path is different, and the pleasant/dear one (Preyas) is quite another. Both have different ways. The one who chooses the virtuous/righteous path fares well; but whoever chooses the pleasant, goes astray.”
The mantra speaks of two distinct paths: श्रेयस (shreyas) (the virtuous/ righteous) the path of ultimate good. The other one is called प्रेयस (preyas) (the pleasant/dear) and is immediately pleasing. People choose them in accordance with their predisposition/inclination, likes and dislike, and both correspondingly lead to different results. The ones who prefer श्रेयस (Śreyas) the virtuous/righteous, reach the ultimate good. Those who choose प्रेयस (Preyas) the dear/pleasing one, go astray.
In the subsequent verse 1.2.2 Yama elaborates on the two paths. He explains that these two alternatives confront us at every turn in life, compelling us to choose between what is ultimately beneficial and what is immediately gratifying. Those who choose śreyas move towards their ultimate good, while those who prefer preyas, lured by immediate pleasures, miss the higher purpose of life.
In a way, Yama offers a remarkably subtle answer to the enduring philosophical riddle of free will versus determinism: are we free to shape our destiny through our choices, or are our choices determined by our innate dispositions?
I will digress a bit to quote a verse from Goswami Tulsidas’s Ramcharitmanas (Balkaand) written in 1574-77 CE in Hindi, which amply clarifies the free will versus determinism dichotomy:
भल अनभल निज निज करतूती। लहत सुजस अपलोक बिभूती॥
Goodness and evil are personal choices, correspondingly they give fame and notoriety.
गुन अवगुन जानत सब कोई। जो जेहि भाव नीक तेहि सोई॥5॥
All know their “what” and “whyfor”, but their choice depends on their innate disposition.
Coming back to the main these of a choice between the virtuous/righteous path and the pleasant/dear path Yama praises Nachiketa and says that he had always been looking for a pupil like him.
Katha Upanishadha or Kathopnishadha 1.2.10
In verse 1.2.10 Yama explains that the entire phenomenal world, including riches and material wealth, is transient and impermanent. Even the offerings used in a sacrificial fire (Yajña) are perishable; hence, a lasting result cannot truly be attained through impermanent means. Nevertheless, Yama observes that he has, by means of Nāchiketa Yajña, using perishable materials as oblations indeed attained an enduring result.
जानाम्यहँ शेवधिरित्यनित्यं न ह्यध्रुवैः प्राप्यते हि ध्रुवं तत् ।
ततो मया नाचिकेतश्चितोऽग्निरनित्यैर्द्रव्यैः प्राप्तवानस्मि नित्यम् ॥ १० ॥
“I know that wealth is transient and that it cannot bestow lasting happiness.
I have, therefore, by means of perishable materials (oblations) in Nāchiketa fire attained a lasting result.”
In effect, Yama, make an important statement. He shows the way how, by means of transient and perishable earthly elements, he had achieved lasting, permanent bliss.
Katha Upanishadha or Kathopnishadha 1.2.18
In verse 1.2.18 Yama answers Nachiketa’s key query posed in verse 1.1.20: “When a person dies, a doubt arises. Some say, ‘he continues to exist,’ others say, ‘he doesn’t.’ ‘What becomes of him?’
Yama’s reply elucidated in verse 1.2.18 is considered as one of the finest and most potent arguments for the philosophy of Advaita (non-dualism) propounded and propagated by Adi Shankaracharya in 8th century CE.
A close literal translation would be: “Neither it is born, nor does it die. This discerning/enlightened one wasn’t ever born from anything, nor did it beget anything. It is unborn, eternal, immutable, everlasting and primeval. Neither does it slay anyone nor can it be slain. It survives even when the body perishes.”
Obviously, the subject of the verse is the Ātman (Self), not the empirical personality. The verse presents the Self as beyond birth, death and bodily destruction.
The thought expressed in this mantra is one of the most important ideas in Hindu philosophy: the ātman (Self) is unborn, eternal, and imperishable; the destruction of the body does not destroy it.
The same thought, sometimes in almost identical words and sometimes in a different philosophical formulation, occurs in several other Hindu scriptures. Bhagavad Gītā 2.20 is, in fact, the closest parallel.
In verse 2.20 Bhagavad Gītā says:
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्
नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः ।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो
न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे ॥
This is virtually identical to the mantra of the Kaṭha Upaniṣhadh, with a small textual difference:
- Kaṭha: न जायते म्रियते वा विपश्चित्
- Gītā: न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचित्
Both conclude with:
न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे। It is not slain when the body is slain.
The Gītā verse is not merely a general parallel; it is an extremely close verbal correspondence.
Next: The Riddle of the Two