ligible. I shall place the three passages together in three parallel lines:
|I.||Khândogya-upanishad V, 2, 6||:|
|II.||Brihad-âranyaka, Mâdhyandina-sâkhâ, XIV, 9, 3, 10||:|
|III.||Brihad-âranyaka-upanishad, Kânva-sâkhâ, VI, 3, 5||:|
|I.||Amo nâmâsy||amâ||hi||te sarvam idam||sa hi gyeshthah|
|II.||âmo 'sy||âmam||hi||te mayi||sa hi|
|III.||âmamsy||âmamhi||te mahi||sa hi|
|I.||sreshtho||râgâdhipatih||sa mâ gyaishthyam srai-|
|II.||râgesâno 'dhipatih||sa mâ râgesâno|
|I.||shthyam râgyam||âdhipatyam||gamayatv aham evedam|
The text in the Khândogya-upanishad yields a certain sense, viz. 'Thou art Ama by name, for all this together exists in thee. He is the oldest and best, the king, the sovereign. May he make me the oldest, the best, the king, the sovereign. May I be all this.' This, according to the commentator, is addressed to Prâna, and Ama, though a purely artificial word, is used in the sense of Prâna, or breath, in another passage also, viz. Brihad-âranyaka-up. I, 3, 22. If therefore we accept this meaning of Ama, the rest is easy and intelligible.
But if we proceed to the Brihad-âranyaka,in the Mâdhyandina-sâkhâ, we find the commentator proposing the following interpretation: 'O Mantha, thou art a full knower, complete knowledge of me belongs to thee.' This meaning is obtained by deriving âmah from â + man, in the sense of knower, and then taking âmam, as a neuter, in the sense of knowledge, derivations which are simply impossible.
Lastly, if we come to the text of the Kânva-sâkhâ, the grammatical interpretation becomes bolder still. Saṅkara does not explain the passage at all, which is strange, but Ânandagiri interprets âmamsi tvam by 'Thou knowest