Mantra 2

In plain words

This refers to approaching through the mouth as a symbol. He attains the deities and subsists on supreme spiritual vigor—this is the concluding praise.

Regarding the phrase 'which seven foods'—'which' serves to modify the action. They are generated by intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, austerity, and action. Indeed, knowledge and action alone are intended by the words 'medhā' and 'tapas' because they are the immediate subject under discussion, not the ordinary meanings of those words, which lack contextual support. Therefore, whatever seven foods the father brought forth through knowledge and action, those we shall now explain—this completes the sentence.

An objection is raised: how can this meaning be considered obvious? The reply is given: the fact that the father is the producer of results—culminating in wives and ritual actions—is directly and plainly visible.

Close to the Sanskrit

Symbolically through the mouth, this is it. He reaches the gods, he lives upon divine vigor—this is the praise.

'Which seven foods'—'which' is an adverb of action. By intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, austerity, and action; indeed, knowledge and action alone are denoted by the words medhā and tapas, due to their being under discussion, and not the other medhā and tapas due to lack of context... Therefore, whatever seven foods the father generated through knowledge and action, those we shall illuminate—such is the remainder of the sentence.

Now, how is the well-knownness of this meaning? It is stated: The fatherhood of those whose means to worldly fruits end with wives and actions is indeed direct and perceptible.

In plain words

It has already been declared: 'May a wife be mine,' and so on, where a son, action, knowledge, and ritual wealth are described as the means for attaining various worlds and creatorhood. What follows next is equally evident. Hence it is fitting to speak of intelligence and similar qualities. Worldly craving is universally recognized as directed toward external results, and scripture itself defines this craving when it says, 'Desire is just this much.' But where the knowledge of Brahman is concerned, because everything is the one Self, any separate desire is entirely out of place. This refutes the idea that unscriptural, instinctive wisdom and asceticism can produce the universe, just as the unpleasant experiences reaching down to plants are rooted in ordinary action and cognition. The relationship of means and ends taught by scripture is what is truly intended here, because one must first feel deep dispassion toward all this. For this entire universe—manifest and unmanifest, impure, impermanent, made of means and ends, inherently painful, and rooted entirely in ignorance—must be abandoned by one who seeks the knowledge of Brahman.

In this context, the proper categorization and allocation of various foods is now explained.

The Vedic text says, 'One of this is common.' Its explanation has been given: 'This is its common food,' referring to all who eat. What is that? The food that is eaten and enjoyed by all living creatures day after day. The creator Prajāpati fashioned this common food for the sustenance of all consumers. Whoever meditates upon this common food—which sustains every living being—as it is being eaten, attains the supreme state. In the world, 'worship' or 'attendance' means deep devotion, as when people serve a teacher or a king. Therefore, food should be eaten strictly to maintain the physical body, not merely for sensual pleasure or for elaborate rituals meant for unseen rewards. A person who views food this way does not become free from sin. Scripture confirms this with the mantra, 'He finds fruitless food,' and Smṛti texts declare: 'One should not cook food solely for himself,' 'Whoever eats without sharing with others is truly a thief,' and 'The consumer of food incurs the guilt of destroying life.' Why does such a person fail to escape sin? Because this food is shared by all; it belongs undividedly to every living creature. Since it is meant for everyone, even a morsel placed in the mouth inevitably deprives someone else, for everyone clings to the thought, 'May this be mine.' Thus, one cannot swallow a bite without depriving another, as confirmed by Smṛti texts regarding human wrongdoing.

Close to the Sanskrit

It has been stated thus: 'May a wife be mine,' and so forth. And there it was stated that divine wealth, knowledge, action, and son are the means to attained worlds with respect to creatorhood; and what is to be spoken next is also well known. Therefore it is proper to speak of intelligence and the like. Desire is indeed well known in the world as having objects for its fruit, and desire is said to be a wife and the like by this: 'This much indeed is desire'; and in the context of the knowledge of Brahman, because of the oneness of all, desires are impossible. By this, world-creatorhood by natural unscriptural wisdom and austerity is already explained; and because the undesirable fruit extending down to the stationary is caused by action and cognition. But the intended relation of end and means is scriptural, because the dispassion toward that is intended—for all this manifest and unmanifest saṃsāra, impure, impermanent, having the form of end and means, painful, and the domain of ignorance, must be begun for one who is detached from this.

There, the distribution and application of foods is spoken of.

The mantra phrase is 'One of this is common'; its explanation: 'This very thing is stated as its common food,' of the community of eaters; what is that? That which is eaten and enjoyed by all living beings day by day, that common food the father created, having created food, for the sake of all eaters. He who worships this common food, which sustains all life-bearers, as it is being eaten—that means he becomes supreme—for worship is known in the world as profound import, as 'one attends upon the teacher', 'one attends upon the king'; therefore for the purpose of body maintenance, not primarily for enjoyment, not primarily for unseen-result action; he being such does not turn away from sin—does not become liberated from it. And thus the mantra text: 'Vain food he finds', and so forth; and the Smṛti also: 'One should not cook food for his own sake', 'Whosoever eats without giving to these, he verily is a thief', 'From the eater of food the embryo-slayer cleanses himself', and so forth. Why does he not turn away from sin? For this is mixed—it is the property of all, undivided, which is eaten by living beings; because of being edible by all, even a morsel thrown into the mouth is seen to be causing pain to another—'may this be mine' is indeed the desire of all fixed upon it; therefore it is not possible to swallow without distressing another. And from the Smṛti statement: 'Sin of men', and so forth.

In plain words

Some maintain that the daily food set aside by a householder is the offering known as Vaiśvadeva. That is incorrect. The quality of being shared by all consumers does not apply to the Vaiśvadeva offering in the same direct, visible way it applies to the food eaten by all living creatures. Nor does the scriptural text 'which this is eaten' point specifically to that ritual offering. Since the Vaiśvadeva offering is merely a part of the general food consumed by all beings, it is proper to include food eaten by dogs, outcastes, and others—especially since such food is found everywhere even outside the Vaiśvadeva ritual. Only in the case of universal food does the scriptural statement 'which this is eaten' fit correctly. If the common food mentioned in the Veda were not understood in this universal sense, it would follow incorrectly that such food was neither created nor assigned by the creator, whereas all food is recognized as created and allocated by him. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to say that someone performing the righteous Vaiśvadeva ritual fails to get rid of sin, for there is no scriptural prohibition against it. Unlike fishing or hunting, which are naturally abhorrent, eating for body maintenance is practiced by noble people, and scripture declares that failing to eat brings ritual demerit. Thus, based on the mantra text, 'I am food, I eat the eater of food,' the universal interpretation stands.

Close to the Sanskrit

Some say that food set apart daily by a householder is called the Vaiśvadeva offering. That is not so. The state of being common to all eaters does not belong to the so-called Vaiśvadeva food in the same evident way as the food enjoyed by all living creatures. Nor is the scriptural statement 'which this is eaten' favorable to that interpretation. And because the Vaiśvadeva offering is included within the food eaten by all life-bearers, it is proper to include the food eaten by dogs, outcastes, and the like, since food eaten by dogs and outcastes is seen even apart from the Vaiśvadeva rite. There the statement 'which this is eaten' is proper. If that were not taken by the word 'common', the flaws of not being created or assigned by the father would result for it. But it is accepted that all food is created and assigned by him. Nor is the non-removal of sin appropriate for one who performs the scripture-prescribed Vaiśvadeva action. And there is no prohibition against it. Nor is this naturally despicable like fishing and similar actions, because it is performed by cultured persons, and because demerit is heard of in its non-performance. And elsewise due to the occurrence of demerit, from the mantra text: 'I am food, I eat the eater of food'.

In plain words

'He shared out the two among the gods' — this line comes straight from the mantra. He made two foods and gave them to the gods; which two were they? Here is the answer: the one poured into the fire, and the one scattered afterward as an offering. 'Poured' means the oblation placed in the fire; 'scattered' is the portion carried out and given as a bali once the pouring is done. Because the primordial father divided exactly these two foods, the poured and the scattered, among the gods, householders still do the same today: at the right time they pour their offering to the gods, thinking, 'this food is ours to give,' and once they've poured it, they scatter the bali as well — that's all this is saying. Some, however, read it differently. They say the two foods the father gave the gods weren't the poured and scattered offerings at all — they were the new-moon and full-moon sacrifices. The first group leans on the fact that 'two' alone doesn't tell you which pair, and the poured-and-scattered pair is simply the most familiar one. But even granting that 'two' could fit either pair, it's the new-moon and full-moon rites — the ones actually laid down by revelation — whose standing as 'food for the gods' is the better-known fact, since the mantra itself spells it out. …the calf, asked why it does nothing but wait for milk, is called 'the one who doesn't yet eat grass' — meaning it still hasn't started on grass, being so young it still lives on milk alone. And whether a child is nursed first on ghee, at the birth ceremonies and such, or lives on milk plain and simple, either way it is living on milk — because ghee is nothing but milk transformed; it never stops being milk at heart. So why is milk — which actually comes seventh — explained here as though it were fourth? Because it serves as the means for ritual action. Rites like the fire-offering rest on milk as their material basis; and that ritual action is itself a means, paid for in wealth, toward the three foods still to be discussed — just as the new-moon and full-moon rites were the two foods already explained. That's why milk is taught right alongside ritual action: both serve the same kind of end, both are bound together by purpose, and mere sequence was never the reason for the order anyway. It's also simply easier to follow this way — foods are easiest to explain one after another without a break, and once explained, they're easy to hold onto. 'In it everything rests, both what breathes and what doesn't' — what does that mean? It means: in that animal-food, in milk, the entire universe rests — the self, the elements, the gods, every dimension of it — both the breathing part, everything astir with the movement of life, and the still part, the mountains and all that never moves. And the very word 'indeed' there is simply pointing to something everyone already knows. But how can a mere substance like milk be the resting-place of everything? Because it can be shown to be the cause — and being the cause means being bound up with rites like the fire-offering, born as the transformed product of the oblations poured in rites like these, and…

Close to the Sanskrit

'He divided the two among the gods' — this is a phrase of the mantra. Having created the two foods, which he divided among the gods, which are those two? — it is said: the offered and the offered-forth. 'Offered' means oblation into the fire; 'offered-forth' is the carrying of the bali after the oblation. Since the father divided these two foods, the offered and the offered-forth, among the gods, therefore even now householders, at the proper time, offer to the gods, thinking 'this food is being given by us to the gods' — they offer, and they also offer-forth; having offered, they also perform the carrying of the bali; that is the meaning. Now others also say: the two foods given by the father to the gods are not the offered and the offered-forth; what then? — the new-moon and full-moon sacrifices. Because there is no distinction merely in hearing 'twoness,' and because of their extreme well-knownness, it is the offered and offered-forth — this is the first position. Although twoness is possible for the offered and offered-forth, still it is of the two Vedic-rite-enjoined ones alone, the new-moon and full-moon sacrifices, whose status as food for the gods is better known, because it is disclosed by the mantra. …calf, when thus asked, is called 'non-grass-eater' — meaning it does not yet eat grass, being an extremely young one, it still lives on milk alone; that is the meaning. And what some, at first, at the birth-rite and so on, live on — ghee, and what others live on — milk alone; that, in every way, they live on milk alone, since ghee too, being a modification of milk, is verily milk. Why then is milk, though actually the seventh, explained as the fourth? Because of being a means for ritual action. For ritual action — the fire-oblation and so on — is the basis of the means, milk; and that ritual action is itself a means accomplished by wealth, for the yet-to-be-stated triad of foods that are to be accomplished, just as the new-moon and full-moon sacrifices are the previously stated two foods. Hence, because of belonging to the side of ritual action, the teaching is grouped together with ritual action; because there is no difference in being a means, and because of connection in purpose, sequence is not the cause — so it is said; and because of ease of comprehension in the exposition — for foods can easily be explained in unbroken succession, and once explained, they are easily understood. 'In it everything is established, both what breathes and what does not' — what is the meaning of this? It is said: in that animal-food, namely milk, the whole universe characterized by the pertaining-to-self, pertaining-to-elements, and pertaining-to-deities is established — both what breathes, having the movement of breath, and what does not, namely the unmoving, mountains and so on. There, indeed, it has been explained by the very word 'hi,' an indicator of what is well-known. How is the substance milk the ground of everything? Because its being the cause is established; and its being the cause is its inherence in rites such as the fire-oblation; and it is of the nature of the transformation of the oblation offered in rites such as the fire-oblation, and…

In plain words

Hundreds of scriptural texts establish that the entire universe is pervaded by this truth; therefore, explaining it with the word 'hi' is entirely fitting. Consider what other brahmana texts declare: 'By making daily milk-oblations for a full year, one conquers repeated death.' The ritual explanation shows that when the yearly oblations and the days and nights are fully integrated, the sacrificer attains the year, which is fire and Prajapati. Through this sustained practice, one transcends mortality, departs this life, becomes luminous among the gods, and never dies again. Yet, the enlightened one does not wait for a full year; the very day he performs the sacrifice, that very day he conquers death, needing no prolonged duration. Because the entire universe is rooted in the primal substance of oblations, the wise one attains universal identity in a single day. To die once as an individual, detach from the limited body, and realize oneself as the all-self means never again taking on a finite body for the sake of dying. What is the cause of this victory? By recognizing that one's daily offering sustains the entire pantheon, one becomes identified with all the gods and the cosmic food itself, thereby rising above mortality forever. As the ancient brahmana text proclaims: the self-existent Brahman, perceiving the limits of mere austerity, resolved to offer itself into all beings and all beings into itself, thereby attaining supreme sovereignty, self-rule, and mastery over all existence.

Close to the Sanskrit

The entirety of the world, thus hundreds of statements of shruti and smriti are established; hence explanation with the word 'hi' is indeed proper. That which they speak of in other brahmana texts—'sacrificing with milk for a year, one conquers re-death'—the yajuṣmatī bricks becoming completely attained with the year, and the days and nights of the year, they attain the year as fire and Prajapati; doing thus, sacrificing through the year, he conquers away re-death—departing from here, having become born among the gods, he does not die again, this is the meaning—thus the brahmana statements declare. Not so the knower, not thus is it to be seen; on whatever day he sacrifices, on that very day he conquers re-death, he does not wait for two years. Being thus a knower—what was said, 'for all this is established in milk, because everything has the nature of a transformation of oblations,' that—by a single day he attains the state of being the self of the world; that is spoken—he conquers re-death, repeated dying, dying once the knower becomes separated from the body and becomes the self of all, he does not take a limited body again for the sake of dying, this is the meaning. What again is the cause, that by attaining the all-self he conquers death? It is spoken—because he gives all complete food-sustenance to all the gods by casting the morning and evening oblations. That is said—making himself consisting of oblations, having attained identity with all gods in the form of all gods and food, having become one whose nature is all gods, he does not die again. And this also was spoken by the brahmana—'Brahman indeed the self-existent practiced austerity, it perceived—there is no infinity in austerity, come now, let me sacrifice myself in beings and beings in myself', having thus sacrificed himself in all beings and beings in himself, he attained preeminence, self-rule, and lordship of all beings.