One loves the husband, not for the husband, but for the Atma - Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad 2.4.5

I found the following translation of Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad passage (2.4.5) particularly interesting:

Truly, it is not due to the love of a husband
that a husband becomes dear,
but due to the love of God
that a husband becomes dear.

Truly, it is not due to the love of a wife
that a wife becomes dear,
but due to the love of God
that a wife becomes dear.

Truly, it is not due to the love of all things
that all things become dear,
but due to the love of God
that all things become dear.

The Sanskrit for this is: na vA are patyuH kAmAya patiH priyo bhavaty Atmanas tu kAmAya patiH priyo bhavati | na vA are jAyAyai kAmAya jAyA priyA bhavaty Atmanas tu kAmAya jAyA priyA bhavati | ... na vA are sarvasya kAmAya sarvaM priyaM bhavaty Atmanas tu kAmAya sarvaM priyaM bhavati | AtmA vA are draSTavyaH zrotavyo mantavyo nididhyAsitavyo maitreyy Atmano vA are darzanena zravaNena matyA vijJAnenedaM sarvaM viditam |

There are, of course, many more things besides wives and husbands that are dear because of the Self within them. Only three have been given here. The passage concludes--"Therefore hear about this Self, think on It, and fix your mind on It. When you hear, think on, and fix your mind on the Self, and when you understand It fully, then all this will be understood."

This is a really fabulous passage, and Dr. Schweig's approach to it is interesting, and though not literal, perhaps correct. He has obviously based his rendition on that of Mascaro, who writes: "In truth, it is not due to the love of a husband that a husband is dear, but for the love of the Soul in the husband that the husband becomes dear." etc. The difference is the interpretation of the word AtmA.

Shankara glosses kAmAya as prayojanAya, or need. "It is not out of a need for the husband that the husband is dear, but out of a need for the Self that he is dear." These are technical differences that may ultimately amount to the same thing, but which give us new depths of understanding. Their juxtaposition reveals a powerful contrast of psychological and religious truth, however. We really seek ourselves in the Other, and thus the satisfaction we find in others is complete only to the degree that we find ourselves. Not knowing our true selves, we look for our selves in others who are equally ignorant of who and what they are in essence. Occasionally, we find common ground in a mutually shared illusion, but that is always tenuous.

We can truly love others when we recognize the Divine Truth in them. So therefore, in the Brahma-mohana lila, we have the following beautiful series of verses:



In all beings, O King, it is one's own self alone that one finds dear. All other things, whether children or property, are dear only because of the love one has for oneself. Therefore, O king, embodied beings never have as much affection for those like their children, wealth or homes, who are merely connected to them, as they do for the body, with which they identify themselves.

O greatest of kings! Those who identify with the body, still have more affection for the soul than for the body, to which they are so attached. Thus, when the body grows old and becomes useless, they still continue to desire life. Therefore, one’s own self is the most dear thing to every living being. It is for the self that this world exists, whether moving or unmoving.



Know this : This Krishna is the Self of all selves. For the benefit of the world, he has appeared here by his illusory potency, as though an embodied being. Those who know things in their truth see Krishna in all conscious and unconscious manifestations. They see everything as the form of the Lord and do not see any substance other than him. There is a meaningful essence present in all things, but the essence of that essence is the Lord Krishna. Please tell me if you can identify anything that is not him.

Certainly, it is necessary to understand the rasa lila in this light also. The search for loving relationships in this world is the most intensely projected search for self in the other that we know of. This search can only be fulfilled in Krishna.

So, kudos to Schweig for this insight and this appropriate connection to the Upanisads.

S. C. Vasu translates: "Verily a husband is not so dear, that you may love the husband, but that you may love the Self, therefore a husband is dear, etc." (p. 192)

Chattopadhyaya treats it: "It is not for the sake of a husband's affection that he is dear, but for the love of the soul." (Vol. I, p. 720)

Vasu's seems to make better sense. That I love you, not because I love you, but because I love me.

O yea, what's kudos?

This aspect of tattva I think is not properly explained by interptating it as, I love you, not because you're my wife, but because you are soul or atma, but actually I love you because I love me which in the ultimate analasys is paramatma. SarvAtmAr Atma

I got the book yesterday.

It may be a recent discovery for Schweig but not to us.

For many years, the devotees of Sri Kripaluji Maharaj are very familiar with this verse BAU 2.4.5 as it has been often melodiously recited (non stop) by Maharaj ji and explained thoroughly its application in devotional philosophy.
The rest of SB verses too!
Some times I am even tempted to sing along with him as this is also my favorite verse but other devotees stop me from doing so.

Adi Jagadguru Shankaraacharya had also declared:
"It is not out of a need for the husband that the husband is dear, but out of a need for the self that he is dear."

Now for my pointless contribution to this great thread.

kudos is a praising remark. Originally from the greek, and it is singular, despite the 's'. So, 'kudos are due' is incorrect.

Ok, now please resume the interesting part of the thread.

Last night I had an interesting experience that I've been thinking of since and which seems related to these ideas of what we identify with and seek in our relationships in this world.

My wife met some devotees here through some friends (we're in Alachua at the moment) and we were invited to a 4th of July get-together. It was a real family thing--kids' games on the lawn, fireworks, etc., but as the night drew on and the bugs became more intent on their buggy business, I went inside with my children. As they played with some toys and my daughter, recognizing the Gaura Nitai deities on the host's altar, kept lifting her arms up in imitation of their pose, I noticed a lady watching very intently, with a love-filled look. My daughter is 16 months old and going through one of those intensely cute phases. She walks around looking precariously drunk, knows a handful of words--her favorites are the three M's: me, mine, Mama--and otherwise looks like an angel. After some time watching, the lady began to cry. Another devotee lady sitting nearby sought to make the situation more comfortable and introduced herself and her friend, explaining why her friend was crying. She had recently lost her baby daughter. The grieving mother tried to interject, not wanting to cause a fuss. She kept apologizing, "I'm sorry...I'm so sorry...But your daughter is so beautiful and when I look at her..."

Hearing these broken words and understanding her heart most of the adults present also began to cry. As parents, we could empathize with her loss, and also simultaneously feared for our own children and celebrated their current well-being. And even in the tears of that mother, there was much more than an absorption in her own pain. She was genuinely happy for us and emanated a motherliness that also embraced our daughter.

It was a very touching experience--one of those moments when you can glimpse something of the divine in everyday relationships. jatasya hi dhruvam mrtyu (that which has been born will certainly die) isn't fatalistic, but a call to true completeness.

The reason I brought this point up is this: Iskcon has so indoctrinated its followers against "Mayavada" that we forget how deeply ingrained this idea is. This following passage comes from a Nimbarki text called Vrindavana-rasa-tattva-samiksha, which I posted recently on GGM.

(BTW, Madhava, could you check the Diacritics Convertor link?)

The argument here is against upapati-bhava, which I think that on the whole he does not quite understand. Gaudiyas accept the ontological verity of svakiya, but that parakiya rasa provides more rasa in the lila. So we can accept the argument that Bhagiratha is making here, even if we disagree with where he takes it.

kiM caupapatyaM zrI-kRSNe paratrApi na yujyate |
aupapatyAnukaraNaM kriyate buddhi-pUrvakam ||32||
vRSAyamANau nardantau yuyudhAte parasparam | (10.11.40)
yathA vRSa-mayUrAder anukAro’pi dRzyate ||33||
tathaiva jAra-bhAvAder anukAro’pi buddhyatAm |

Krishna's being a paramour lover is illogical. He is consciously playing the role of a paramour. Krishna imitates the activities of a paramour, just as when a child he imitated the activities of the bulls or peacocks, "Krishna and Balaram pretended to be bulls, and bellowing they fought with each other." (10.11.40)

rAgeNollaGghayan dharmaM parakIyA-balarthinA ||34||
tadIya-prema-vasatir budhair upapatiH smRtaH | (U.N. 1.17)
asambhavas tu zrI-kRSNe lakSaNasyAsya vidyate ||35||
yataH kRSNe kAnta-bhAve na dharmollaGghanaM bhavet |

"The upapati is a man who becomes so passionate in his desire for another woman that he transgresses the moral law in order to have her." (U.N. 1.17)

This definition of an upapati in the Ujjvala Nilamani is therefore impossible where Krishna is concerned, for when Krishna acts as a lover, there is no transgression of the moral law.

viSNor eva patitvasya strINAM sarvatra kIrtanAt ||36||
sarvAsAm eva nArINAm ato mukhyaH patir hariH |
dAtAhaM varuNo rAjA dravyam Aditya-daivatam |
vipro’sau viSNu-rUpeNa pratigRhaNAtv ayaM vidhiH |
lakSmI-rUpaM imAM kanyAM dvijAya viSNu-rUpiNe ||
iti vaivAhike mantre varasya viSNu-rUpatAm |
dhyAtvaiva dIyate kanyA lakSmI-rUpeti nizcayAt ||39||

Vishnu is everywhere glorified as the husband of all women. Indeed, Vishnu is the principal husband of all women. The mantra used during the kanya dana portion of the marriage ceremony says the following: "I am the greatest giver, the king Varuna Deva. According to the rules, may this brahmin in the form of Vishnu accept my gift, which is worthy of the Sun God. I give this girl, who is a form of Lakshmi, to this brahmin, who is the form of Vishnu." (a bit rough)

zAligrAma-zilAdInAM yathA viSNu-pratIkatA |
na mukhyatA tathA jJeyA vare viSNu-pratIkatA ||40||
pUjAyAM sampradAnatvaM viSNor eva hi mukhyataH |
vivAhe sampradAnatvaM tathA viSNos tu mukhyataH ||41||
ato vaidhavya-samprAptau strIbhir viSNos tu pUjyatA |
bhartR-bhAvena smaryante kRSNa-dvipAyanAdibhiH ||42||

Just as the Shalagram Shila is a pratika or representation of Vishnu, not his principal form, so is the groom in the marriage ceremony seen as the representation of Vishnu. Thus, in this marriage ceremony, the bride is actually being given to Vishnu, just as one's puja to the Shalagram is intended for Vishnu. Thus, when a woman becomes a widow, she reverts to worshiping Vishnu directly, thinking of him as her husband. This is stated in the Smritis by Vedavyasa.

ataz ca nArI-mAtrasya mukhyo bhartA ramA-patiH |
ato hi parame viSNau zrI-kRSNe bhartR-buddhitaH ||43||
na dharmollaGghanaM vAcyaM kRSNa-mAhAtmya-vedibhiH |
ata eva hi gopIbhiH zukenApi maharSiNA |
jAra-bhAvaM niSiddhyaiva bhartR-bhAvaM puraskRtaH |
antar-gRha-gatAnAM tu jAra-bhAvo’pi yaH smRtaH |
sa tAsAm eva vijJeyas tadIyAjJAna-kalpitaH |
netarAsAm ato jJeyaH kRSNe pArAtmya-nizcayAt ||46||

Thus the principal husband for every woman is the husband of the goddess of fortune. Therefore, since Krishna is the supreme form of Vishnu, one should recognize him as a husband also. Therefore anyone who knows this glory of his can never say that Krishna has transgressed the moral law. As such, the great seer Shukadeva himself denies that Krishna was truly a paramour and establishes that he is in truth the husband of the gopis. The words "antar-gRha-gatA" and "jAra-bhAva" (verses 10.29.9,11) are only to show that those particular gopis who remained in their houses were unaware of this deeper relationship. But the others, who know that Krishna is the Supreme Soul, did not make this mistake.

The gopis say,

yat-paty-apatya-suhRdAm anuvRttir aGga
strINAM sva-dharma iti dharma-vidA tvayoktam |
astv evam etad upadeza-pade tvayIze
preSTho bhavAMs tanubhRtAM kila bandhur AtmA ||47|| iti | (10.29.37)

"O beloved! You are the knower of the moral law, and so you have told us that it is the religious duty of all women to serve their husbands, children and family relatives. But this instruction ultimately should apply to you, who are instructing us. For you are our Lord. You are the most dearly beloved husband of all creatures—you are their dearest friend, you are their soul."

svIyAnam api gopInAM paroDhAtvasya varNanam |
tac ca dRSTAnta-lAbhAya prapattau sarva-karmaNAm ||47||

The gopis are thus Krishna's own wives. The descriptions of them as the wives of others is simply given to serve as an example of self-surrender in all actions.

Jesus said something like, "If you can't love your neighbor, whom you can see, how will you love God, whom you cannot see?" This is, in effect, what is at the very root of all this "See God in your husband, your wife, your Guru," etc. Bhakti, like charity, begins at home.

"Truly, it is not due to the love of a husband
that a husband becomes dear,
but due to the love of Spirit
that a husband becomes dear."

that is my take on this passage, and a host of similar ones.

That's pretty vague. Furthermore, "AtmA" does not mean "spirit" but "self."

The real meaning is "for the love of yourself that they are dear." But "self" is extrapolated--na te viduH svArtha-gatiM hi viSNum. What is the self.

Thanks.
But I've found Schweig's comments on the other thread being very simple and not impressive.
If any devotee ever heard attentively the whole series of detailed discourses on the magnificent 'Maha Raas' given by Sri Kripaluji Maharaj knows the reason. They are available in Hindi on audio and video tapes.
Scholors of Devotional philosophy would be spellbound and immensely enjoy the vast scriptural references Sri Maharaj ji (zrI mat padavAkya pramANa pArAvArINa) recites . These series of lectures just cover only the introduction.
He says none in the audience have the 'adhikAra' even to hear the sublime Maha Raas Lila.



"tameva paramAtmAnaM jAra buddhayApi saGgatAH....

tamIzvarANaM paramaM mahezvaraM
taM devatAnAM paramaM ca daivataM
patiM patInAM paramaM parastAd
vidAma devaM bhuvanezam IDyam

perhaps it was intended to be somewhat vague? perhaps there can be several reasons why these things are dear to us? on some level each one of the possible meanings of "Atma" can be seen as appropriate in this context.

Namaste all. Here is a very thoughtful pada from 'Siddhanta Madhuri' of
'Prema Rasa Madira' composed in Vraja bhasha by Jagadguru Sri
Kripaluji Maharaj and published in early 1950s.

'are mana! sunu upaniSad vicAr'

O my dear naive mind!
Please just listen to what the ancient sacred
scriptures have declared.

'kovu pitu-mAta, putra sukha-kAraNa, karata na sapanehun pyAr'

Mother and father do not love the child for the sole hapiness
sake of the son or daughter, not even in their dreams.

'timi kovu putra mAtu-pitu sukha hita karata na kachu vyavahAr'

Similarly no son and daughter do engage themselves in various actions
for the sake of parents' happiness alone.

'kovu tiya pati hita pyAr karati nahin asa kaha sant pukAr'

So also, the Saints have been making their loud announcements that the
wife does not love the husband for the sake of his happiness.

'timi kovu pati tiya sukha kAraNa kachu karata na yahi ura dhAr'

Make it firm in your heart that the husband too never loves his wife
for keeping her ever happy.

In the concluding verse the Poet-Saint Sri Kripaluji brings out the
essence of the verse 2.4.5 of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad declaring:

'sab 'kRpAlu' nija sukha hita nita prati jorata nAta hajAr'

From time immemorial everyone in this material world have been
entangled in so called attachments and enter into and establish
thousands of relationships frankly for the sake of one's own
self-happiness.

It is a well known true doctrine revealed in the Scripture.

The implied teaching here is to not fool ourselves or others any more
by accepting this scriptural truth. The wise seekers who have realized
this fact would not waste their life on the earth but look for the
true eternal happiness of the self, the spirit soul, which lies in the
Divine Supreme Soul alone.

raso vai saH rasaM hyevAyaM labdvA' 'nandI bhavati

- Taittiriya Upanishad 2.7.2