The Upanishads, Part I — SBE Vol. 1 (trans. F. Max Müller, 1879)
English·1879–1910·trans. Georg Bühler & James Legge·271 passages
The text · part 2 of 13
Tue Sacrep Books oF THE East, TRANSLATED, WITH INTRODUC- Tions AND NoTEs, BY VARIOUS ORIENTAL SCHOLARS, AND EpITED By F. Max MUL.ER.
Apart from the interest which the Sacred Books of all religions possess in the eyes of the theologian, and, more particularly, of the missionary, to whom an accurate knowledge of them is as indispensable as a knowledge of the enemy’s country is to a general, these works have of late assumed a new importance, as viewed in the character of ancient historical documents. In every country where Sacred Books have been preserved, whether by oral tradition or by writing, they are the oldest records, and mark the beginning of what may be called documentary, in opposition to purely traditional, history.
There is nothing more ancient in India than the Vedas; and, if we except the Vedas and the literature connected with them, there is again no literary work in India which, so far as we know at present, can with certainty be referred to an earlier date than that of the Sacred Canon of the Buddhists. Whatever age we may assign to the various portions of the Avesta and to their final arrangement, there is no book in the Persian language of greater antiquity than the Sacred Books of the followers of Zarathustra, nay, even than their translation in Pehlevi. There may have been an extensive ancient literature in China long before Khung-fd-3ze and L&o-3ze, but among all that was rescued and preserved of it, the five King and the four Sh claim again the highest antiquity. As to the Koran, it is known to be the fountain-head both of the religion and of the literature of the Arabs.
This being the case, it was but natural that the attention of the historian should of late have been more strongly attracted by these Sacred Books, as likely to afford most valuable information, not only on the religion, but also on the moral sentiments, the social institutions, the legal maxims of some of the most important nations of antiquity. There are not many nations that have preserved sacred writings, and many of those that have been preserved have but lately become accessible to us in their original form, through the rapid advance of Oriental scholarship in Europe. Neither Greeks, nor Romans, nor Germans, nor Celts, nor Slaves have left us anything that deserves the name of Sacred Books. The
SACRED BOOKS OF THE EAST. xlt
Neither Greeks, nor Romans, nor Germans, nor Celts, nor Slaves have left us anything that deserves the name of Sacred Books. The
SACRED BOOKS OF THE EAST. xlt
Homeric Poems are national Epics, like the Ramayana, and the Nibelunge, and the Homeric Hymns have never received that general recognition or sanction which alone can impart to the poetical effusions of personal piety the sacred or canonical character which is the distinguishing feature of the Vedic Hymns. The sacred literature of the early inhabitants of Italy seems to have been of a liturgical rather than of a purely religious kind, and whatever the Celts, the Germans, the Slaves may have possessed of sacred traditions about their gods and heroes, having been handed down by oral tradition chiefly, has perished beyond all hope of recovery. Some portions of the Eddas alone give us an idea of what the religious and heroic poetry of the Scandinavians may have been. The Egyptians possessed Sacred Books, and some of them, such as the Book of the Dead, have come down to us in various forms. There is a translation of the Book of the Dead by Dr. Birch, published in the fifth volume of Bunsen’s Egypt, and a new edition and translation of this important work may be expected from the combined labours of Birch, Chabas, Lepsius, and Naville. In Babylon and Assyria, too, important fragments of what may be called a Sacred Literature have lately come to light. The interpretation, however, of these Hieroglyphic and Cuneiform texts is as yet so difficult that, for the present, they are of interest to the scholar only, and hardly available for histotical purposes,
Leaving out of consideration the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, it appears that the only great and original religions which profess to be founded on Sacred Books', and have preserved them in manuscript, are :—
1. The religion of the Brahmans, . The religion of the followers of Buddha. . The religion of the followers of Zarathustra. . The religion of the followers of Khung-f-3ze. . The religion of the followers of L4o-;ze. . The religion of the followers of Mohammed.
A desire for a trustworthy translation of the Sacred Books of these six Eastern religions has often been expressed. Several have been translated into English, French, German, or Latin, but in some cases these translations are difficult to procure, in others they are loaded with notes and commentaries, which are intended for
An & WwW DN
1 Introduction to the Science of Religion, by F. Max Miller (Longmans, 1873), p. 104.
xlii PREFACE TO THE
Max Miller (Longmans, 1873), p. 104.
xlii PREFACE TO THE students by profession only. Oriental scholars have been blamed for not having as yet supplied a want so generally felt, and so frequently expressed, as a complete, trustworthy, and readable translation of the principal Sacred Books of the Eastern Religions, The reasons, however, why hitherto they have shrunk from such an undertaking are clear enough. The difficulties in many cases of giving complete translations, and not selections only, are very great. There is still much work to be done in a critical restoration of the original texts, in an examination of their grammar and metres, and in determining the exact meaning of many words and passages. That kind of work is naturally far more attractive to scholars than a mere translation, particularly when they cannot but feel that, with the progress of our knowledge, many a passage which now seems clear and easy, may, on being re-examined, assume a new import. Thus while scholars who are most competent to undertake a translation, prefer to devote their time to more special researches, the work of a complete translation is deferred to the future, and historians are left under the impression that Oriental scholarship is still in so unsatisfactory a state as to make any reliance on translations of the Veda, the Avesta, or the T4o-te King extremely hazardous.
It is clear, therefore, that a translation of the principal Sacred Books of the East can be carried out only at a certain sacrifice. Scholars must leave for a time their own special researches in order to render the general results already obtained accessible to the public at large. And even then, really useful results can be achieved viribus unitis only. If four of the best Egyptologists have to combine in order to produce a satisfactory edition and translation of one of the Sacred Books of ancient Egypt, a much larger number of Oriental scholars will be required for translating the Sacred Books of the Brahmans, the Buddhists, the Zoroastrians, the followers of Khung-f(-3ze, LAo-3ze, and Mohammed.
Lastly, there was the most serious difficulty of all, a difficulty which no scholar could remove, viz. the difficulty of finding the funds necessary for carrying out so large an undertaking. No doubt there exists at present a very keen interest in questions connected with the origin, the growth, and decay of religion. But much of that interest is theoretic rather than historical. How people might or could or should have elaborated religious ideas, is a topic most warmly discussed among psychologists and theologians, but a study of the documents, in which alone the actual growth of religious thought can be traced, is much neglected.
SACRED BOOKS OF THE EAST. xliii
How people might or could or should have elaborated religious ideas, is a topic most warmly discussed among psychologists and theologians, but a study of the documents, in which alone the actual growth of religious thought can be traced, is much neglected.
SACRED BOOKS OF THE EAST. xliii
A faithful, unvarnished prose translation of the Sacred Books of India, Persia, China, and Arabia, though it may interest careful students, will never, I fear, excite a widespread interest, or command a circulation large enough to make it a matter of private enterprise and commercial speculation.
No doubt there is much in these old books that is startling by its very simplicity and truth, much that is elevated and elevating, much that is beautiful and sublime; but people who have vague ideas of primeval wisdom and the splendour of Eastern poetry will soon find themselves grievously disappointed. It cannot be too strongly stated, that the chief, and, in many cases, the only interest of the Sacred Books of the East is historical; that much in them is extremely childish, tedious, if not repulsive; and that no one but the historian will be able to understand the important lessons which they teach. It would have been impossible to undertake a translation even of the most important only of the Sacred Books of the East, without the support of an Academy or a University which recognises the necessity of rendering these works more generally accessible, on the same grounds on which it recognises the duty of collecting and exhibiting in Museums the petrifactions of bygone ages, little concerned whether the public admires the beauty of fossilised plants and broken skeletons, as long as hard-working students find there some light for reading once more the darker pages in the history of the earth. ‘ Having been so fortunate as to secure that support, having also received promises of assistance from some of the best Oriental scholars in England and India, I hope I shall be able, after the necessary preparations are completed, to publish about three volumes of translations every year, selecting from the stores of the six so-called ‘Book-religions’ those works which at present can be translated, and which are most likely to prove useful. All translations will be made from the original texts, and where good translations exist already, they will be carefully revised by competent scholars. Such is the bulk of the religious literature of the Brahmans and the Buddhists, that to attempt a complete translation would be far beyond the powers of one generation of scholars. Still, if the interest in the work itself should continue, there is no reason why this series of translations should not be carried on, even after those who commenced it shall have ceased from their labours.
What I contemplate at present, and I am afraid at my time of life even this may seem too sanguine, is no more than a Series xliv PREFACE TO THE
What I contemplate at present, and I am afraid at my time of life even this may seem too sanguine, is no more than a Series xliv PREFACE TO THE of twenty-four volumes, the publication of which will probably extend over eight years. In this Series I hope to comprehend the following books, though I do not pledge myself to adhere strictly to this outline :—
1. From among the Sacred Books of the Brahmans I hope to give a translation of the Hymns of the Rig-veda. While I shall continue my translation of selected hymns of that Veda, a traduction raisonnée which is intended for Sanskrit scholars only, on the same principles which I have followed in the first volume’, explaining every word and sentence that seems to require elucidation, and carefully examining the opinions of previous commentators, both native and European, I intend to contribute a freer translation of the hymns to this Series, with a few explanatory notes only, such as are absolutely necessary to enable readers who are unacquainted with Sanskrit to understand the thoughts of the Vedic poets. The translation of perhaps another Samhita, one or two of the Brahmaaas, or portions of them, will have to be included in our Series, as well as the principal Upanishads, theosophic treatises of great interest and beauty. There is every prospect of an early appearance of a translation of the Bhagavad-git4, of the most important among the sacred Law-books, and of one at least of the Purdsas. I should have wished to include a translation of some of the Gain books, of the Granth of the Sikhs, and of similar works illustrative of the later developments of religion in India, but there is hardly room for them at present.
2. The Sacred Books of the Buddhists will be translated chiefly from the two original collections, the Southern in Pali, the Northern in Sanskrit. Here the selection will, no doubt, be most difficult. Among the first books to be published will be, I hope, Satras from the Digha Nik4ya, a part of the Vinaya-pifaka, the Dhammapada, the Divy4vadana, the Lalita-vistara, or legendary life of Buddha. ;
3. The Sacred Books of the Zoroastrians lie within a smaller compass, but they will require fuller notes and commentaries in order to make a translation intelligible and useful.
4. The books which enjoy the highest authority with the followers of Khung-fd-3ze are the King and the Sha. Of the former the Sh King or Book of History; the Odes of the Temple and
? Rig-veda-sanhité, The Sacred Hymns of the Brahmans, translated and explained by F. Max Miller. Vol. i. Hymns to the Maruts or the Storm-Gods. London, 1869.
SACRED BOOKS OF THE EAST. xlv
Of the former the Sh King or Book of History; the Odes of the Temple and
? Rig-veda-sanhité, The Sacred Hymns of the Brahmans, translated and explained by F. Max Miller. Vol. i. Hymns to the Maruts or the Storm-Gods. London, 1869.
SACRED BOOKS OF THE EAST. xlv
the Altar, and other pieces illustrating the ancient religious views and practices of the Chinese, in the Shih King or Book of Poetry; the Yi King; the Lt Xf; and the Hsiao King or Classic of Filial Piety, will all be given, it is hoped, entire. ‘Of the latter, the Series will contain the Xung Yung or Doctrine of the Mean; the Ta Hsio or Great Learning; all Confucius’ utterances in the Lun Yi or Confucian Analects, which are of a religious nature, and refer to the principles of his moral system; and Mang-3ze’s Doctrine of the Goodness of Human Nature.
5. For the system of L&o-3ze we require only a translation of the T4o-teh King with some of its commentaries, and, it may be, an authoritative work to illustrate the actual operation of its principles.
6. For Islam, all that is éssential is a trustworthy translation of the Koran.
It will be my endeavour to divide the twenty-four volumes which are contemplated in this Series as equally as possible among the six religions. But much must depend on the assistance which I receive from Oriental scholars, and also on the interest and the
wishes of the public. .. F. MAX MULLER. Oxrorp, October, 1876.
The following distinguished scholars, all of them occupying the foremost rank in their own special departments of Oriental literature, are at present engaged in preparing translations of some of the Sacred Books of the East: S. Beal, R. G. Bhan-: darkar, G. Bihler, A. Burnell, E. B. Cowell, J. Darmesteter, T, W. Rhys Davids, J. Eggeling, V. Fausbdéll, H. Jacobi, J. Jolly, H. Kern, F. Kielhorn, J. Legge, H. Oldenberg, E. H. Palmer, R. Pischel, K. T. Telang, E. W. West.
The works which for the present have been selected for translation are the following:
I. AncieENT VeEpic RELIGION.
Hymns of the Azg-veda. The Satapatha-brahmaza.
xlvi PREFACE TO THE
The Upanishads. The Grzhya-sitras of Hirazyakesin and others.
II. Law-Books IN PROSE.
The Sttras of Apastamba, Gautama, Baudhdyana, Vasish¢ha, Vishau, &c.
TIL LAW-BOOKS IN VERSE. The Laws of Manu, Yagfiavalkya, &c.
IV. Larter BRAHMANISM.
The Bhagavad-gita. The Vayu-puraza.
V. Buppuism.
1. Pali Documents.
The Mah4parinibbana Sutta, the Tevigga Sutta, the Mahasudassana Sutta, the Dhammagakkappavattana Sutta; the Suttanipdta; the Mahdvagga, the Xullavagga, and the Patimokkha.
2. Sanskrit Documents. The Divyavadana and Saddharmapuzaartka.
3. Chinese Documents. The Phf-y4o King, or life of Buddha.
4. Prakrit Gaina Documents.
The Afaranga Sdtra, Dasavaik4lika Sdtra, Satrakrvztanga, and Uttaradhyayana Satra.
VI. Parsi REtIcIon.
1. Zend Documents. The Venditdad.
SACRED BOOKS OF THE EAST. xlvii
2. Pehlevi and Parsi Documents.
3. Chinese Documents. The Phf-y4o King, or life of Buddha.
4. Prakrit Gaina Documents.
The Afaranga Sdtra, Dasavaik4lika Sdtra, Satrakrvztanga, and Uttaradhyayana Satra.
VI. Parsi REtIcIon.
1. Zend Documents. The Venditdad.
SACRED BOOKS OF THE EAST. xlvii
2. Pehlevi and Parsi Documents.
The Bundahis, Bahman Yasht, Shdyast-la-shayast, Dadistani Dint, Mainyéi Khard.
VII. MoHAMMEDANISM. The Koran.
VIII. Cuinese RE LIGIon.
1. Confucianism.
The Sha King, Shih King, Hsiao King, Yt King, Li #1, Lun Yi, and Mang-jze.
2. Taoism.
The T4o-teh King, Awang-3ze, and Kan Ying Phien.
xl viii PREFACE TO THE
_ TRANSLITERATION OF ORIENTAL ALPHABETS,
The system of transcribing Oriental words with Roman types, adopted by the translators of the Sacred Books of the East, is, on the whole, the same which I first laid down in my Proposals for a Missionary Alphabet, 1854, and which afterwards I shortly described in my Lectures on the Science of Language, Second Series, p. 169 (ninth edition). That system allows of great freedom in its application to different languages, and has, therefore, recommended itself to many scholars, even if they had long been accustomed to use their own system of transliteration.
It rests in fact on a few principles only, which may be applied to individual languages according to the views which each student has formed for himself of the character and the pronunciation of the vowels and consonants of any given alphabet.
It does not differ essentially from the Standard Alphabet proposed by Professor Lepsius. It only endeavours to realise, by means of the ordinary types which are found in every printing office, what my learned friend has been enabled to achieve, it may be in a more perfect manner, by means of a number of new types with diacritical marks, cast ‘expressly for him by the Berlin Academy.
The general principles of what, on account of its easy application to all languages, I have called the Missionary Alphabet, are these :
1. No letters are to be used which do not exist in ordinary founts.
SACRED BOOKS OF THE EAST. xlix
2. The same Roman type is always to represent the same foreign letter, and the same foreign letter is always to be represented by the same Roman type.
3. Simple letters are, as a rule, to be represented by simple, compound by compound types.
4. It is not attempted to indicate the pronunciation of foreign languages, but only to represent foreign letters by Roman types, leaving the pronunciation to be learnt, as it is now, from grammars or from conversation with natives.
4. It is not attempted to indicate the pronunciation of foreign languages, but only to represent foreign letters by Roman types, leaving the pronunciation to be learnt, as it is now, from grammars or from conversation with natives.
5. The foundation of every system of transliteration must consist of a classification of the typical sounds of human speech. Such classification may be more or less perfect, more or less minute, according to the objects in view. For ordinary purposes the classification in vowels and consonants, and of consonants again in gutturals, dentals, and labials suffices. In these three classes we distinguish hard (not-voiced) and sonant (voiced) consonants, each being liable to aspiration; nasals, sibilants, and semivowels, sonie of these also, being either voiced or not-voiced.
6. After having settled the typical sounds, we assign to them, as much as possible, the ordinary Roman types of the first class.
7. We then arrange in every language which possesses a richer alphabet, all remaining letters, according to their affinities, as modifications of the nearest typical letters, or as letters of the second and third class. Thus linguals in Sanskrit are treated as nearest to dentals, palatals to gutturals.
8. The manner of expressing such modifications is uniform throughout. While all typical letters of
(3) d
| PREFACE TO THE
the first class are expressed by Roman types, modified letters of the second class are expressed by italics, modified letters of the third class by small capitals. Only in extreme cases, where another class of modified types is wanted, are we compelled to have recourse either to diacritical marks, or to a different fount of types.
9. Which letters in each language are to be considered as primary, secondary, or tertiary may, to a certain extent, be left to the discretion of individual scholars.
to. As it has been found quite impossible to devise any practical alphabet that should accurately represent the pronunciation of words, the Missionary Alphabet, by not attempting to indicate minute shades of pronunciation, has at all events the advantage of not misleading readers in their pronunciation of foreign words. An italic ¢, for instance, or a small capital T, serves simply as a warning that this is not the ordinary t, though it has some affinity with it. How it is to be pronounced must be learnt for each language, as it now is, from a grammar or otherwise. Thus ¢ in Sanskrit is the lingual 4. How that is to be pronounced, we must learn from the Pratisikhyas, or from the mouth of a highly educated Srotriya. We shall then learn that its pronunciation is really that of what we call the ordinary dental t, as in town, while the ordinary dental t in Sanskrit has a pronunciation of its own, extremely difficult to acquire for Europeans.
11. Words or sentences which used to be printed in italics are spaced.
d2
11. Words or sentences which used to be printed in italics are spaced.
d2
TRANSLITERATION OF ORIENTAL ALPHABETS ADOPTED FOR THE TRANSLATIONS OF THE SACRED Books OF THE East.
CONSONANTS,
MISSIONARY ALPHABET,
T Class.
II Class.
IIT Class,
Zend.
Pehlevi.
Persian,
Arabic,
Hebrew.
Chinese.
Gutturales. 1 Tenuis...... 2 4, # aspirata....... Bs Media: sora) s6.%. 1. Baie a ese 4 ,, aspirata........ 5 Gutturo-labialis .
Proper names have frequently been left in their ordinary spelling, e.g. Rajendra, instead of Ragendra. In words which have almost become English, the diacritical marks have often been omitted, e.g. Rig-veda, instead of Rig-veda; Brahman, instead of Brabmana; Confucius, Zoroaster, Koran, &c.
INTRODUCTION
TO
THE UPANISHADS.
FIRST TRANSLATION OF THE UPANISHADS. DARA SHUKOH, ANQUETIL DUPERRON, SCHOPENHAUER.
THE ancient Vedic literature, the foundation of the whole literature of India, which has been handed down in that country in an unbroken succession from the earliest times within the recollection of man to the present day, became known for the first time beyond the frontiers of India through the Upanishads. The Upanishads were translated from Sanskrit into Persian by, or, it may be, for Dara Shukoh, the eldest son of Shah Jeh4n, an enlightened prince, who openly professed the liberal religious tenets of the great Emperor Akbar, and even wrote a book intended to reconcile the religious doctrines of Hindus and Mohammedans. He seems first to have heard of the Upanishads during his stay in Kashmir in 1640. He afterwards invited several Pandits from Benares to Delhi, who were to assist him in the work of translation. The translation was finished in 1657. Three years after the accomplishment of this work, in 1659, the prince was put to death by his brother Aurangzib}, in reality, no doubt, because he was the eldest son and legitimate successor of Shah Jehan, but under the pretext that he was an infidel, and dangerous to the established religion of the empire.
When the Upanishads had once been translated from Sanskrit into Persian, at that time the most widely read language of the East and understood likewise by many European scholars, they became generally accessible to
When the Upanishads had once been translated from Sanskrit into Persian, at that time the most widely read language of the East and understood likewise by many European scholars, they became generally accessible to
1 Elphinstone, History of India, ed. Cowfll, p. 610,
Iviii UPANISHADS.
all who took an interest in the religious literature of India. It is true that under Akbar’s reign (1556-1586) similar translations had been prepared ', but neither those nor the translations of Dara Shukoh attracted the attention of European scholars till the year 1775. In that year Anquetil Duperron, the famous traveller and discoverer of the Zend-avesta, received one MS. of the Persian translation of the Upanishads, sent to him by M. Gentil, the French resident at the court of Shuja ud daula, and brought to France by M. Bernier. After receiving another MS., Anquetil Duperron collated the two, and translated the Persian translation? into French (not published), and into Latin. That Latin translation was published in 1801 and 1802, under the title of ‘Oupnek’hat, id est, Secretum tegendum: opus ipsa in India rarissimum, continens antiquam et arcanam, seu theologicam et philosophicam doctrinam, e quatuor sacris Indorum libris Rak baid, Djedjer baid, Sam baid, Athrban baid excerptam; ad verbum, e Persico idiomate, Samkreticis vocabulis intermixto, in Latinum conversum: Dissertationibus et Annotationibus difficiliora explanantibus, illustratum: studio et opera Anquetil Duperron, Indicopleuste. Argentorati, typis et impensis fratrum Levrault, vol. i, 1801; vol. ii, 1802 5.’
This translation, though it attracted considerable interest among scholars, was written in so utterly unintelligible a style, that it required the lynxlike perspicacity of an intre-
1 M.M., Introduction to the Science of Religion, p. 79.
® Several other MSS. of this translation have since come to light; one at Oxford, Codices Wilsoniani, 399 and 400. Anquetil Duperron gives the following title of the Persian translation: ‘ Hanc interpretationem r&v Oupnekhathai quorumvis quatuor librorum Beid, quod, designatum cum secreto magno (per secretum magnum) est, et integram cognitionem luminis luminum, hic Fakir sine tristitia (Sultan) Mohammed Dara Schakoh ipse, cum significatione recta, cum sinceritate, in tempore sex mensium (postremo die, secundo rod Schonbeh, vigesimo) sexto mensis rod Ramazzan, anno 1067 rod Hedjri (Christi, 1657) in urbe Delhi, in mansione nakhe noudeh, cum absolutione ad finem fecit pervenire.’ The MS. was copied by Atma Ram in the year 1767 a.p. Anquetil Duperron adds: ‘Absolutum est hoc Apographum versionis Latins 7@v quinquaginta Oupnekhatha, ad verbum, e Persico idiomate, Samskreticis vocabulis intermixto, facte, die g Octobris, 1796, 18 Brumaire, anni 4, Reipublic. Gall. Parisiis.’ -
3 M.M., History of Adbcient Sanskrit Literature, second edition, p. 325.
INTRODUCTION. lix
Gall. Parisiis.’ -
3 M.M., History of Adbcient Sanskrit Literature, second edition, p. 325.
INTRODUCTION. lix
pid philosopher, such as Schopenhauer, to discover a thread through such a labyrinth. Schopenhauer, however, not only found and followed such a thread, but he had the courage to proclaim to an incredulous age the vast treasures of thought which were lying buried beneath that fearful jargon.
As Anquetil Duperron’s volumes have become scarce, I shall here give a short specimen of his translation, which corresponds to the first sentences of my translation of the KhAndogya-upanishad (p. 1):—‘Oum hoc verbum (esse) adkit ut sciveris, sic r6 maschghouli fac (de eo meditare), quod ipsum hoc verbum aodkit est; propter illud quod hoc (verbum) oum, in Sam Beid, cum voce alta, cum harmonia pronunciatum fiat.
‘Adkiteh porro cremor (optimum, selectissimum) est: quemadmodum ex (prz) omni quieto (non moto), et moto, pulvis (terra) cremor (optimum) est; et e (pre) terra aqua cremor est; et ex aqua, comedendum (victus) cremor est ; (et) e comedendo, comedens cremor est; et e€ comedente, loquela (id quod dicitur) cremor est; et e loquela, atet rod Beid, et ex atet, 7d siam, id est, cum harmonia (pronunciatum); et e Sam, rd adkit, cremor est ; id est, oum, voce alta, cum harmonia pronunciare, aokit, cremor cremorum (optimum optimorum) est. Major, ex (prz) adkit, cremor alter non est.’
Schopenhauer not only read this translation carefully, but he makes no secret of it, that his own philosophy is powerfully impregnated by the fundamental doctrines of the Upanishads. He dwells on it again and again, and it seems both fair to Schopenhauer’s memory and _ highly important for a true appreciation of the philosophical value of the Upanishads, to put together what that vigorous thinker has written on those ancient rhapsodies of truth.
In his ‘Welt als Wille und Vorstellung,’ he writes, in the preface to the first edition, p. xiii:
“If the reader has also received the benefit of the Vedas, the access to which by means of the Upanishads is in my eyes the greatest privilege which this still young century (1818) may claim before all previous centuries, (for I anticipate that the influence of Sanskrit literature will not be less prolx UPANISHADS.
found than the revival of Greek in the fourteenth century, )}—if then the reader, I say, has received his initiation in primeval Indian wisdom, and received it with an open heart, he will be prepared in the very best way for hearing what I have to tell him. It will not sound to him strange, as to many others, much less disagreeable ; for I might, if it did not sound conceited, contend that every one of the detached statements which constitute the Upanishads, may be deduced as a necessary result from the fundamental thoughts which I have to enunciate, though those deductions themselves are by no means to be found there.’
And again!:
‘If I consider how difficult it is, even with the assistance of the best and carefully educated teachers, and with all the excellent philological appliances collected in the course of this century, to arrive at a really correct, accurate, and living understanding of Greek and Roman authors, whose language was after all the language of our own predecessors in Europe, and the mother of our own, while Sanskrit, on the contrary, was spoken thousands of years ago in distant India, and can be learnt only with appliances which are as yet very imperfect ;—if I add to this the impression which the translations of Sanskrit works by European scholars, with very few exceptions, produce on my mind, I cannot resist a certain suspicion that our Sanskrit scholars do not understand their texts much better than the higher class of schoolboys their Greek. Of course, as they are not boys, but men of knowledge and understanding, they put together, out of what they do understand, something like what the general meaning may have been, but much probably creeps in ex ingenio. It is still worse with the Chinese of our European Sinologues.
‘If then I consider, on the other hand, that Sultan Mohammed Dérd Shukoh, the brother of Aurangzib, was born and bred in India, was a learned, thoughtful, and enquiring man, and therefore probably understood his Sanskrit about as well as we our Latin, that moreover
1 Schopenhauer, Parerga, third edition, II, p. 426.
INTRODUCTION. Ixi
he was assisted by a number. of the most learned Pandits, all this together gives me at once a very high opinion of his translation of the Vedic Upanishads into Persian. If, besides this, I see with what profound and quite appropriate reverence Anquetil Duperron has treated that Persian translation, rendering it in Latin word by word, retaining, in spite of Latin grammar, the Persian syntax, and all the Sanskrit words which the Sultan himself had left untranslated, though explaining them in a glossary, I feel the most perfect confidence in reading that translation, and that confidence’ soon receives its most perfect justification. For how entirely does the Oupnekhat breathe throughout the holy spirit of the Vedas! How is every one who by a diligent study of its Persian Latin has become familiar with that incomparable book, stirred by that spirit to the very depth of his soul! How does every line display its firm, definite, and throughout harmonious meaning! From every sentence deep, original, and sublime thoughts arise, and the whole is pervaded by a high and holy and earnest spirit. Indian air surrounds us, and original thoughts of kindred spirits. And oh, how thoroughly is the mind here washed clean of all early engrafted Jewish superstitions, and of all philosophy that cringes before those. superstitions! In the whole world there is no study, except that of the originals, so beneficial and so elevating as that of the Oupnekhat. It has been the solace of my life, it will be the solace of my death! —e
superstitions! In the whole world there is no study, except that of the originals, so beneficial and so elevating as that of the Oupnekhat. It has been the solace of my life, it will be the solace of my death! —e
‘Though ! I feel the highest regard for the religious and philosophical works of Sanskrit literature, I have not been able to derive much pleasure from their poetical compositions. Nay, they seem to me sometimes as tasteless and monstrous as the sculpture of India. °
‘In? most of the pagan philosophical writers of the first Christian centuries we see the Jewish theism, which, as Christianity, was soon to become the faith of the people, shining through, much as at present we may perceive shining through in the writings of the learned, the native
1 Loc. cit. II, pp. 435. ® Loc, cit. I, p. 59.
lxit UPANISHADS. | pantheism of India, which is destined sooner or later to become the faith of the people. Ex oriente lux.’
This may seem strong language, and, in some respects, too strong. But I thought it right to quote it here, because, whatever may be urged against Schopenhauer, he was a thoroughly honest thinker and honest speaker, and no one would suspect him of any predilection for what has been so readily called Indian mysticism. That Schelling and his school should use rapturous language about the Upanishads, might carry little weight with that large class of philosophers by whom everything beyond the clouds of their own horizon is labelled mysticism. But that Schopenhauer should have spoken of the Upanishads as ‘products of the highest wisdom’ (Ausgeburt der héchsten Weisheit)!, that he should have placed the pantheism there taught high above the pantheism of Bruno, Malebranche, Spinoza, and Scotus Erigena, as brought to light again at Oxford in 16812, may perhaps secure a more considerate reception for these relics of ancient wisdom than anything that I could say in their favour.
RAMMOHUN Roy.
Greater, however, than the influence exercised on the philosophical thought of modern Europe, has been the impulse which these same Upanishads have imparted to the religious life of modern India. In about the same year (1774 or 1775) when the first MS. of the Persian translation of the Upanishads was received by Anquetil Duperron, Rammohun Roy® was born in India, the reformer and reviver of the ancient religion of the Brahmans. A man who in his youth could write a book ‘Against the Idolatry of all Religions,’ and who afterwards expressed in so many exact words his ‘belief in the divine authority of Christ 4,’ was not likely to retain anything of the sacred literature of his own religion, unless he had perceived in it the same
1 Loe. cit. II, p. 428.
2 Loc. cit. I, p.6. These passages were pointed out to me by Professor Noire. 8 Born 1774, died at 3.30 4.M., on Friday, 28th September, 1833.
‘ Last Days of Rammohun Roy, by Mary Carpenter, 1866, p. 135.
INTRODUCTION. Ixiii
cit. II, p. 428.
2 Loc. cit. I, p.6. These passages were pointed out to me by Professor Noire. 8 Born 1774, died at 3.30 4.M., on Friday, 28th September, 1833.
‘ Last Days of Rammohun Roy, by Mary Carpenter, 1866, p. 135.
INTRODUCTION. Ixiii
divine authority which he recognised in the teaching of Christ. He rejected the Purdzas, he would not have been swayed in his convictions by the authority of the Laws of Manu, or even by the sacredness of the Vedas. He was above all that. But he discovered in the Upanishads and in the so-called Vedanta something different from all the rest, something that ought not to be thrown away, something that, if rightly understood, might supply the right native soil in which alone the seeds of true religion, aye, of true Christianity, might spring up again and prosper in India, as they had once sprung up and prospered from out the philosophies of Origen or Synesius. European scholars have often wondered that Rammohun Roy, in his defence of the Veda, should have put aside the Samhitas and the Brahmaaas, and laid his finger on the Upanishads only, as the true kernel of the whole Veda. Historically, no doubt, he was wrong, for the Upanishads presuppose both the hymns and the liturgical books of the Veda. But as the ancient philosophers distinguished in the Veda between the Karma-kanda and the Giiana-kamda, between works and knowledge; as they themselves pointed to the learning of the sacred hymns and the performance of sacrifices as a preparation only for that enlightenment which was reserved as the highest reward for the faithful performance of all previous duties!, Rammohun Roy, like Buddha and other enlightened men before him, perceived that the time for insisting on all that previous discipline with its minute prescriptions and superstitious observances was gone, while the knowledge conveyed in the Upanishads or the Vedanta, enveloped though it may be in strange coverings, should henceforth form the foundation of a new religious life *. He would tolerate nothing idolatrous, not even in his mother, poor woman, who after joining his most bitter opponents, confessed to her son, before she set out on her
' M.M., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 319.
® <The adoration of the invisible Supreme Being is exclusively prescribed by the Upanishads or the principal parts of the Vedas and also by the Vedant.’ Rammohun Roy, Translation of the Kena-upanishad, Calcutta, 1816, p. 6. M. M., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 320.
lxiv UPANISHADS.
® <The adoration of the invisible Supreme Being is exclusively prescribed by the Upanishads or the principal parts of the Vedas and also by the Vedant.’ Rammohun Roy, Translation of the Kena-upanishad, Calcutta, 1816, p. 6. M. M., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 320.
lxiv UPANISHADS.
last pilgrimage to Juggernaut, where she died, that ‘he was right, but that she was a weak woman, and grown too old to give up the observances which were a comfort to her.’ It was not therefore from any regard of their antiquity or their sacred character that Rammohun Roy clung to the Upanishads, that he translated them into Bengali, Hindi, and English, and published them at his own expense. It was because he recognised in them seeds of eternal truth, and was bold enough to distinguish between what was essential in them and what was not,—a distinction, as he often remarked with great perplexity, which Christian teachers seemed either unable or unwilling to make}. The death of that really great and good man during his stay in England in 1833, was one of the severest blows that have fallen on the prospects of India. But his work has not been in vain, Like a tree whose first shoot has been killed by one winter frost, it has broken out again in a number of new and more vigorous shoots, for whatever the outward differences may be between the Adi Brahmo Sam§j of Debendranath Tagore, or the Brahmo Samaj of India of _Keshub Chunder Sen, or the Sadharan Brahmo Sam§j, the common root of them all is the work done, once for all, by Rammohun Roy, That work may have disappeared from sight for a time, and its present manifestations may seem to many observers who are too near, not very promising. But in one form or another, under one name or another, I feel convinced that work will live. ‘In India,’ Schopenhauer writes, ‘ our religion will now and never strike root: the primitive wisdom of the human race will never be pushed aside there by the events of Galilee. On the contrary, Indian wisdom will flow back upon Europe, and produce a thorough change in our knowing and thinking.’ Here, again, the great philosopher seems to me to have allowed himself to be carried away too far by his enthusiasm for the less known. He is blind for the dark sides of the Upanishads, and he wilfully shuts his eyes against the bright rays of eternal truth in the Gospels, which even
1 Last Days, p. 11.
INTRODUCTION. lxv
Rammohun Roy was quick enough to perceive behind the mists and clouds of tradition that gather so quickly round the sunrise of every religion.
POSITION OF THE UPANISHADS IN VEDIC LITERATURE.
11.
INTRODUCTION. lxv
Rammohun Roy was quick enough to perceive behind the mists and clouds of tradition that gather so quickly round the sunrise of every religion.
POSITION OF THE UPANISHADS IN VEDIC LITERATURE.
If now we ask what has been thought of the Upanishads by Sanskrit scholars or by Oriental scholars in general, it must be confessed that hitherto they have not received at their hands that treatment which in the eyes of philosophers and theologians they seem so fully to deserve. When the first enthusiasm for such works as Sakuntala and Gita-Govinda had somewhat subsided, and Sanskrit scholars had recognised that a truly scholarlike study of Indian literature must begin with the beginning, the exclusively historical interest prevailed to so large an extent that the hymns of the Veda, the Brahmavas, and the Sftras absorbed all interest, while the Upanishads were put aside for a time as of doubtful antiquity, and therefore of minor importance.
My real love for Sanskrit literature was first kindled by the Upanishads. It was in the year 1844, when attending Schelling’s lectures at Berlin, that my attention was drawn to those ancient theosophic treatises, and I still possess my collations of the Sanskrit MSS. which had then just arrived at Berlin, the Chambers collection, and my copies of commentaries, and commentaries on commentaries, which I made at that time. Some of my translations which I left with Schelling, I have never been able to recover, though to judge from others which I still possess, the loss of them is of small consequence. Soon after leaving Berlin, when continuing my Sanskrit studies at Paris under Burnouf, I put aside the Upanishads, convinced that for a true appreciation of them it was necessary to study, first of all, the earlier periods of Vedic literature, as represented by the hymns and the Brahmamas of the Vedas.
In returning, after more than thirty years, to these favourite studies, I find that my interest in them, though it has changed in character, has by no means diminished.
[3] e
Ixvi UPANISHADS,
In returning, after more than thirty years, to these favourite studies, I find that my interest in them, though it has changed in character, has by no means diminished.
[3] e
Ixvi UPANISHADS,
It is true, no doubt, that the stratum of literature which contains the Upanishads is later than the Samhit4s, and later than the Brahmamas, but the first germs of Upanishad doctrines go back at least as far as the Mantra period, which provisionally has been fixed between 1000 and 800 B.C. Conceptions corresponding to the general teaching of the Upanishads occur in certain hymns of the Rig-veda-samhita, they must have existed therefore before that collection was finally closed. One hymn in the Samhita of the Rig-veda (I, 191) was designated by K4tydyana, the author of the Sarvanukramazika, as an Upanishad. Here, however, upanishad means rather a secret charm than a philosophical doctrine. Verses of the hymns have often been incorporated in the Upanishads, and among the Oupnekhats translated into Persian by Dara Shukoh we actually find the Purusha-sdkta, the goth hymn of the tenth book of the Rig-veda}, forming the greater portion of the Bark’heh Soukt. In the Samhita of the Yagur-veda, however, in the Vagasaneyisakha, we meet with a real Upanishad, the famous ts& or fsAvAsya-upanishad, while the Sivasamkalpa, too, forms part of its thirty-fourth book *. In the Brahmamas several U panishads occur, even in portions which are not classed as Aranyakas, as, for instance, the well-known Kena or Talavakéra-upanishad. The recognised place, however, for the ancient Upanishads is in the Arazyakas, or forest-books, which, as a rule, form an appendix to the Brahmazas, but are sometimes included also under the general name of Brahmava. Brahmaza, in fact, meaning originally the sayings of Brahmans, whether in the general sense of priests, or in the more special of Brahman-priest, is a name applicable not only to the books, properly so called, but to all old prose traditions, whether contained in the Samhitas, such as the Taittirtya-sas#hit4, the Brahmazas, the Aranyakas, the Upanishads, and even, in certain cases, in the Sitras. We shall see in the introduction to the Aitareya-A4ravyaka, that that Aramyaka is in the beginning
' See Weber, Indische Studien, IX, p. 1 seq. 3 See M. M., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 317.
INTRODUCTION. Ixvii
We shall see in the introduction to the Aitareya-A4ravyaka, that that Aramyaka is in the beginning
' See Weber, Indische Studien, IX, p. 1 seq. 3 See M. M., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 317.
INTRODUCTION. Ixvii
a Brahmawa, a mere continuation of the Aitareya-brahmaza, explaining the Mahavrata ceremony, while its last book contains the Sftras or short technical rules explaining the same ceremony which in the first book had been treated in the style peculiar to the Brahmavas. In the same Aitareya-aramyaka, III, 2, 6, 6, a passage of the Upanishad is spoken of as a Brahmaza, possibly as something like a Brahmaza, while something very like an Upanishad occurs in the Apastamba-sitras, and might be quoted therefore as a Sftra’. At all events the Upanishads, like the Aranyakas, belong to what Hindu theologians call Sruti, or revealed literature, in opposition to Smziti, or traditional literature, which is supposed to be founded on the former, and allowed to claim a secondary authority only ; and the earliest of these philosophical treatises will always, I believe, maintain a place in the literature of the world, among the most astounding productions of the human mind in any age and in any country.
DIFFERENT CLASSES OF UPANISHADS.
The ancient Upanishads, i.e. those which occupy a place in the Saszhitas, Brahmanas, and Aramyakas, must be, if we follow the chronology which at present is commonly, though, it may be, provisionally only, received by Sanskrit scholars, older than 600 B.C. i.e. anterior to the rise of Buddhism. As to other. Upanishads, and their number is very large, which either stand by themselves, or which are ascribed to the Atharva-veda, it is extremely difficult to fix their age. Some of them are, no doubt, quite modern, for mention is made even of an Allah-upanishad; but others may claim a far higher
_antiquity than is generally assigned to them on internal evidence. I shall only mention that the name of Atharvasiras, an Upanishad generally assigned to a very modern date, is quoted in the Sdtras of Gautama and Baudhayana?;
1 Apastamba, translated by Biihler, Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. 75. ? Gautama, translated by Biihler, Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. 47% and Introduction, p. lvi.
e€2
Ixviii UPANISHADS.
that the Svet4svatara-upanishad, or the Svetasvataranam Mantropanishad, though bearing many notes of later periods of thought, is quoted by Sankara in his commentary on the Vedanta-sitras!; while the Nvésimhottaratapantyaupanishad forms part of the twelve Upanishads explained by Vidy4razya in his Sarvopanishad-arthanubhati-prakasa. The Upanishads comprehended in that work are:
1. Aitareya-upanishad.
2. Taittiriya-upanishad.
3. Khindogya-upanishad.
4. Mundaka-upanishad.
5. Prasna-upanishad.
6. Kaushitaki-upanishad.
7. Maitrayamiya-upanishad.
8. Karhavalli-upanishad.
g. Svet4svatara-upanishad.
10. Brihad-dravyaka-upanishad.
11, Talavakara (Kena)-upanishad.
Aitareya-upanishad.
2. Taittiriya-upanishad.
3. Khindogya-upanishad.
4. Mundaka-upanishad.
5. Prasna-upanishad.
6. Kaushitaki-upanishad.
7. Maitrayamiya-upanishad.
8. Karhavalli-upanishad.
g. Svet4svatara-upanishad.
10. Brihad-dravyaka-upanishad.
11, Talavakara (Kena)-upanishad.
12. Nrisimhottaratapantya-upanishad *. The number of Upanishads translated by Dara Shukoh amounts to 50; their number, as given in the Mahavakyamukt4vali and in the Muktik4-upanishad, is 108%. Professor Weber thinks that their number, so far as we know at present, may be reckoned at 235‘. In order, however, to arrive at so high a number, every title of an Upanishad would have to be counted separately, while in several cases it is clearly the same Upanishad which is quoted under different names. In an alphabetical list which I published in 1865 (Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft XIX, 137-158), the number of real Upanishads reached 149. To that number Dr. Burnell® in his Catalogue
1 Vedanta-sitras I, 1,11.
2 One misses the {fs8 or tsivasya-upanishad in this list. The Upanishads chiefly studied in Bengal are the Brihad-aranyaka, Aitareya, Khandogya, Taittiriya, tsa, Kena, Katha, Prasna, Mundaka, and Mandikya, to which should be added the Svetasvatara. M.M., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 325.
* Dr. Burnell thinks that this is an artificial computation, 108 being a sacred number in Southern India. See Kielhom in Gough's Papers on Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 193.
- * Weber, History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 155 note.
§ Indian Antiquary, II, 267.
INTRODUCTION. Ixix (p. 59) added 5, Professor Haug (Brahma und die Brahmanen) 16, making a sum total of 170. New names, however, are constantly being added in the catalogues of MSS. published by Biihler, Kielhorn, Burnell, Rajendralal Mitra, and others, and I shall reserve therefore a more complete list of Upanishads for a later volume.
Though it is easy to see that these Upanishads belong to very different periods of Indian thought, any attempt to fix their relative age seems to me for the present almost hopeless. No one can doubt that the Upanishads which have had a place assigned to them in the Samhitds, Brahmazas, and Aranyakas are the oldest. Next to these we can draw a line to include the Upanishads clearly referred to in the Vedanta-sitras, or explained and quoted by Sankara, by Sdyaza, and other more modern commentators. We can distinguish Upanishads in prose from Upanishads in mixed prose and verse, and again Upanishads in archaic verse from Upanishads in regular and continuous Anushfubh Slokas. We can also class them according to their subjects, and, at last, according to the sects to which they belong. But beyond this it is hardly safe to venture at present. Attempts have been made by Professor Weber and M. Regnaud to
We can also class them according to their subjects, and, at last, according to the sects to which they belong. But beyond this it is hardly safe to venture at present. Attempts have been made by Professor Weber and M. Regnaud to
_ fix in each class the relative age of certain Upanishads, and I do not deny to their arguments, even where they conflict with each other, considerable weight in forming a preliminary judgment. But I know of hardly any argument which is really convincing, or which could not be met by counter arguments equally strong. Simplicity may be a sign of antiquity, but it is not so always, for what seems simple, may be the result of abbreviation. One Upanishad may give the correct, another an evidently corrupt reading, yet it does not follow that the correct reading may not be the result of an emendation. It is quite clear that a large mass of traditional Upanishads must have existed before they assumed their present form. Where two or three or four Upanishads contain the same story, told almost in the same words, they are not always copied from one another, but they have been settled independently, in different localities, by different teachers, it may be, for different purposes.
Ixx UPANISHADS.
Lastly, the influence of Sakh4s or schools may have told more or legs on certain Upanishads. Thus the Maitrayatyaupanishad, as we now possess it, shows a number of irregular forms which even the commentator can account for only as peculiarities of the Maitrayaztya-sakha1. That Upanishad, as it has come down to us, is full of what we should call clear indications of a modern and corrupt age. It contains in VI, 37, a sloka from the M4nava-dharma-sdstra, which startled even the commentator, but is explained away by him as possibly found in another S4kh4, and borrowed from there by Manu. It contains corruptions of easy words which one would have thought must have been familiar to every student. Thus instead of the passage as found in the KAandogya-upanishad VIII, 7, 1, ya 4tmapahatap4pma vigaro vimrityur visoko ’vigighatso ’pipd4sak, &c., the text of the Maitrayaxiya-upanishad (VII, 7) reads, 4tmapahatapapm4 vigaro vimrityur visoko ’vikikitso ’vipasak. But here again the commentator explains that another SakhA reads ’vigighatsa, and that avipdsa is to be explained by means of a change of letters as apipdsa. Corruptions, therefore, or modern elements which are found in one Upanishad, as handed down in one Sakh4, do not prove that the same existed in other Sakhds, or that they were found in the original text.
Corruptions, therefore, or modern elements which are found in one Upanishad, as handed down in one Sakh4, do not prove that the same existed in other Sakhds, or that they were found in the original text.
All these questions have to be taken into account before we can venture to give a final judgment on the relative age of Upanishads which belong to one and the same class, I know of no problem which offers so many similarities with the one before us as that of the relative age of the four Gospels. All the difficulties which occur in the Upanishads occur here, and no critical student who knows the difficulties that have to be encountered in determining the relative age of the four Gospels, will feel inclined, in the present state of Vedic scholarship, to speak with confidence on the relative age of the ancient Upanishads.
1 They are generally explained as #handasa, but in one place (Maitr. Up. II, 4) the commentator treats such irregularities as etakkAakhasahketapashak, a reading peculiar to the Maitrayantya school. Some learned remarks on this point may be seen in an article by Dr, L. Schroeder, Uber die Maitrayant Samhita.
INTRODUCTION. Ixxi
CRITICAL TREATMENT OF THE TEXT OF THE UPANISHADS.
With regard to a critical restoration of the text of the Upanishads, I have but seldom relied on the authority of new MSS., but have endeavoured throughout to follow that text which is presupposed by the commentaries, whether they are the work of the old Sankar4zarya, or of the more modern Sankarananda, or Sayama, or others. Though there still prevails some uncertainty as to the date of Sankara#arya, commonly assigned to the eighth century A.D., yet I doubt whether any MSS. of the Upanishads could now be found prior to 1000 A.D. The text, therefore, which Sankara had before his eyes, or, it may be, his ears, commands, I think, a higher authority than that of any MSS. likely to be recovered at present.
It may be objected that Sankara’s text belonged to one locality only, and that different readings and different recensions may have existed in other parts of India. That is perfectly true. We possess various recensions of several Upanishads, as handed down in different Sakhds of different Vedas, and we know of various readings recorded by the commentators. These, where they are of importance for our purposes, have been carefully taken into account.