From the archive

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 3 of 13

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.

It has also been supposed that Sankara, who, in writing his commentaries on the Upanishad, was chiefly guided by philosophical considerations, his chief object being to use the Upanishads as a sacred foundation for the Vedanta philosophy, may now and then have taken liberties with the text. That may be so, but no stringent proof of it has as yet been brought forward, and I therefore hold that when we succeed in establishing throughout that text which served as the basis of Sankara’s commentaries, we have done enough for the present, and have fulfilled at all events the first and indispensable task in a critical treatment of the text of the Upanishads,

But in.the same manner as it is easy to see that the text

Ixxii UPANISHADS.

of the Rig-veda, which is presupposed by Sayama’s commentary and even by earlier works, is in many places palpably corrupt, we cannot resist the same conviction with regard to the text of the Upanishads. In some cases the metre, in others grammar, in others again the collation of analogous passages enable us to detect errors, and probably very ancient errors, that had crept into the text long before Sankara composed his commentaries.

Some questions connected with the metres of the Upanishads have been very learnedly treated by Professor Gildemeister in his essay, ‘Zur Theorie des Sloka.’ The lesson to be derived from that essay, and from a study of the Upanishads, is certainly to abstain for the present from conjectural emendations. In the old Upanishads the same metrical freedom prevails as in the hymns; in the later Upanishads, much may be tolerated as the result of conscious or unconscious imitation. The metrical emendations that suggest themselves are generally so easy and so obvious that, for that very reason, we should hesitate before correcting what native scholars would have corrected long ago, if they had thought that there was any real necessity for correction.

It is easy to suggest, for instance, that in the Vagasaneyisamhita-upanishad, verse 5, instead of tad antar asya sarvasya tadu sarvasy4sya bahyata4, the original text may have been tad antar asya sarvasya tadu sarvasya bahyatas; yet Sankara evidently read sarvasyasya, and as the same reading is found in the text of the V4agasaneyi-samhita, who would venture to correct so old a mistake?

Again, if in verse 8, we left out ydthdtathyatas, we should get a much more regular metre,

Kavir manishi paribh0k svyambhik
arthan vyadadhaé &£AAsvatibhyak samAbhyas.
Here vyada forms one syllable by what I have proposed

to call synizesis!, which is allowed in the Upanishads as well as in the hymns. All would then seem right, except

Here vyada forms one syllable by what I have proposed to call synizesis!, which is allowed in the Upanishads as well as in the hymns. All would then seem right, except

? Rig-veda, translated by M. M., vol. i, Preface, p. cxliii.

INTRODUCTION. Ixxiil

that it is difficult to explain how so rare a word as yathatathyata’ could have been introduced into the text.

In verse 10 one feels tempted to propose the omission of eva in anyad 4hur avidyayéa, while in verse 11, an eva inserted after vidyam ka would certainly improve the metre.

In verse 15 the expression satyadharmaya drishéaye is archaic, but perfectly legitimate in the sense of ‘that we may see the nature of the True,’ or ‘that we see him whose nature is true.’ When this verse is repeated in the Maitr. Up. VI, 35, we find instead, satyadharmaya vishaave, ‘for the true Vishzu.’ But here, again, no sound critic would venture to correct a mistake, intentional or unintentional, which is sanctioned both by the MSS. of the text and by the commentary.

Such instances, where every reader feels tempted at once to correct the textus receptus, occur again and again, and when they seem of any interest they have been mentioned in the notes. It may happen, however, that the correction, though at first sight plausible, has to be surrendered on more mature consideration. Thus in the V4gasaneyi-samhit4-upanishad, verse 2, one feels certainly inclined to write evam tve nanyatheto ’sti, instead of evam tvayi nanyatheto’sti. But tve, if it were used here, would probably itself have to be pronounced dissyllabically, while tvayi, though it never occurs in the Rig-veda, may well keep its place here, in the last book of the Vagasaneyisamhit4, provided we pronounce it by synizesis, i.e. as one syllable.

Attempts have been made sometimes to go beyond Sankara, and to restore the text, as it ought to have been originally, but as it was no longer in Sankara’s time. It is one thing to decline to follow Sankara in every one of his interpretations, it is quite another to decline to accept the text which he interprets. The former is inevitable, the latter is always very precarious.

Thus I see, for instance, that M. Regnaud, in the Errata to the second volume of his excellent work on the Upanishads (Matériaux pour servir 4 histoire de la philosophie de l'Inde, 1878) proposes to read in the Brihad-4ranyaka-

Ixxiv UPANISHADS.

upanishad IV, 3, 1-8, sam anena vadishya iti, instead of sa mene na vadishya iti. Sankara adopted the latter reading, and explained accordingly, that Yagfiavalkya went to king Ganaka, but made up his mind not to speak. M. Regnaud, reading sam anena vadishya iti, takes the very opposite . view, namely, that Y4giavalkya went to king Ganaka, having made up his mind to have a conversation with him. As M. Regnaud does not rest this emendation on the authority of any new MSS., we may examine it as an ingenious conjecture; but in that case it seems to me clear that, if we adopted it, we should have at the same time to omit the whole sentence which follows. Sankara saw clearly that what had to be accounted or explained was why the king should address the Brahman first, samrad eva prvam paprakkhka; whereas if Yagtiavalkya had come with the intention of having a conversation with the king, he, the Brahman, should have spoken first. This irregularity is explained by the intervening sentence, in which we are reminded that on a former occasion, when Ganaka and Y4g‘fiavalkya had a disputation on the Agnihotra, Yagiiavalkya granted Ganaka a boon to choose, and he chose as his boon the right of asking questions according to his pleasure. Having received that boon, Ganaka was at liberty to question Yagfiavalkya, even though he did not like it, and hence Ganaka is introduced here as the first to ask a question.

All this hangs well together, while if we assume that YAgfiavalkya came for the purpose of having a conversation with Ganaka, the whole sentence from ‘atha ha yag ganakas ka’ to ‘pirvam paprakkha’ would be useless, nor would there be any excuse for Ganaka beginning the conversation, when YAagiiavalkya came himself on purpose to question him.

It is necessary, even when we feel obliged to reject an interpretation of Sankara’s, without at the same time altering the text, to remember that Sankara, where he is not blinded by philosophical predilections, commands the highest respect as an interpreter. I cannot help thinking therefore that M. Regnaud (vol. i, p. 59) was right in translating the passage in the AKAand. Up. V, 3, 7, tasmad u

INTRODUCTION. Ixxv

I cannot help thinking therefore that M. Regnaud (vol. i, p. 59) was right in translating the passage in the AKAand. Up. V, 3, 7, tasmad u

INTRODUCTION. Ixxv

sarveshu lokeshu kshattrasyaiva pras4sanam abhbit, by ‘que le kshatriya seul I’a enseignée dans tous les mondes.’ For when he proposes in the ‘ Errata’ to translate instead, ‘c’est pourquoi l’empire dans tous les mondes fut attribué au kshatriya seulement,’ he forgets that such an idea is foreign to the ordinary atmosphere in which the Upanishads move. It is not on account of the philosophical knowledge possessed by a few Kshatriyas, such as Ganaka or Pravahama, that the privilege of government belongs everywhere to the second class. That rests on a totally different basis. Such exceptional knowledge, as is displayed by a few kings, might be an excuse for their claiming the privileges belonging to the Brahmans, but it would never, in the eyes of the ancient Indian Aryas, be considered as an argument for their claiming kingly power. Therefore, although I am well aware that prasds is most frequently used in the sense of ruling, I have no doubt that Sankara likewise was fully aware of that, and that if he nevertheless explained prasdsana here in the sense of prasAstritvam sishy4a#4m, he did so because this meaning too was admissible, particularly here, where we may actually translate it by proclaiming, while the other meaning, that of ruling, would simply be impossible in the concatenation of ideas, which is placed before us in the Upanishad.

It seems, no doubt, extremely strange that neither the last redactors of the text of the Upanishads, nor the commentators, who probably knew the principal Upanishads by heart, should have perceived how certain passages in one Upanishad represented the same or nearly the same text which is found in another Upanishad, only occasionally with the most palpable corruptions,

Thus when the ceremony of offering a mantha or mash is described, we read in the K4ndogya-upanishad V, 2, 6, that it is to be accompanied by certain words which on the whole are intelligible. But when the same passage occurs again in the Brthad-aramzyaka, those words have been changed to such a degree, and in two different ways in the two Sakh4s of the M4dhyandinas and K4zvas, that, though the commentator explains them, they are almost unintel-

Ixxvi UPANISHADS. ~

ligible. I shall place the three passages together in three parallel lines:

I. KAandogya-upanishad V, 2, 6
II. Brihad-adranyaka, MAdhyandina-sakh4, XIV, 9, 3, 10:
III. Brithad-dravyaka-upanishad, K4mva-sakh4, VI, 3, 5

I. Amo namd4sy am4 hi te sarvam idam sa hi gyeshthahk
II. 4mo’sy 4mam hi te mayi sa hi
III. Aamamsy 4mamhi te mahi sa hi

I. sreshtho ragAdhipatiz sa mA gyaishthyam srai-
II. ragesdno ‘dhipatiZ sa ma ragesdno
IIL. ragesano

I. shtkyam ragyam Adhipatyam gamayatv aham evedam IT. *dhipatim karotv iti.
III. *dhipatim —karotv iti.

I. sarvam asaniti.

II,
Ill.

Aamamsy 4mamhi te mahi sa hi

I. sreshtho ragAdhipatiz sa mA gyaishthyam srai-
II. ragesdno ‘dhipatiZ sa ma ragesdno
IIL. ragesano

I. shtkyam ragyam Adhipatyam gamayatv aham evedam IT. *dhipatim karotv iti.
III. *dhipatim —karotv iti.

I. sarvam asaniti.

II,
Ill.

The text in the K/#Andogya-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 Prava, and Ama, though a purely artificial word, is used in the sense of Pr4va, or breath, in another passage also, viz. Brzhad-arazyaka-up. I, 3,22. If therefore we accept this meaning of Ama, the rest is easy and intelligible.

But if we proceed to the Bvthad-4rayaka, in the Madhyandina-sakha, 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 Ama’ from 4+ man, in the sense of knower, and then taking 4mam, as a neuter, in the sense of knowledge, derivations which are simply impossible.

Lastly, if we come to the text of the Kazva-sakha, the grammatical interpretation becomes bolder still. Sankara does not explain the passage at all, which is strange, but Anandagiri interprets Amamsi tvam by ‘Thou knowest

INTRODUCTION. Ixxvii

(all), and dmamhi te mahi, by ‘we know thy great
(shape), which are again impossible forms.

But although there can be little doubt here that the reading of the KAandogya-upanishad gives us the original text, or a text nearest to the original, no sound critic would venture to correct the readings of the Brzhadaramyaka. They are corruptions, but even as corruptions they possess authority, at all events up to a certain point, and it is the fixing of those certain points or chronological limits, which alone can impart a scientific character to our criticism of ancient texts.

They are corruptions, but even as corruptions they possess authority, at all events up to a certain point, and it is the fixing of those certain points or chronological limits, which alone can impart a scientific character to our criticism of ancient texts.

In the Kaushitaki-brahmava-upanishad Professor Cowell has pointed out a passage to me, where we must go beyond the text as it stood when commented on by the Sankarananda. In the beginning of the fourth adhydya all MSS. of the text read savasan, and this is the reading which the commentator seems anxious to explain, though not very successfully. I thought that possibly the commentator might have had before him the reading sa vasan, or so ’vasan, but both would be very unusual. Professor Cowell in his Various Readings, p. xii, conjectured saszvasan, which would be liable to the same objection. He now, however, informs me that, as B. has samtvan, and C. satvan, he believes the original text to have been Satvan-Matsyeshu. This seems to me quite convincing, and is borne out by the reading of the Berlin MS., so far as it can be made out from Professor Weber’s essay on the Upanishads, Indische Studien I, p. 419. I see that Boehtlingk and Roth in their Sanskrit Dictionary, s.v. satvat, suggest the same emendation.

The more we study the nature of Sanskrit MSS., the more, I believe, we shall feel convinced that their proper arrangement is one by locality rather than by time. I have frequently dwelt on this subject in the introductions to the successive volumes of my edition of the Rig-veda and its commentary by Saya#4karya, and my convictions on this point have become stronger ever since. A MS., however modern, from the south of India or from the north, is more important as a check on the textus receptus of

Ixxviii ’ UPANISHADS,

A MS., however modern, from the south of India or from the north, is more important as a check on the textus receptus of

Ixxviii ’ UPANISHADS, any Sanskrit work, as prevalent in Bengal or Bombay, than ever so many MSS., even if of greater antiquity, from the same locality. When therefore I was informed by my friend Dr. Bihler that he had discovered in Kashmir a MS. of the Aitareya-upanishad, I certainly expected some real help from such a treasure. The MS. is described by its discoverer in the last number of the Journal of the Bombay Asiatic Society, p. 341, and has since been sent to me by the Indian Government. It is written on birch bark (bhdrga), and in the alphabet commonly called Sarad&. The leaves are very much injured on the margin, and it is almost impossible to handle them without some injury. In many places the bark has shrunk, probably on being moistened, and the letters have become illegible. Apart from these drawbacks, there remain the difficulties inherent in the S4rad4 alphabet which, owing to its numerous combinations, is extremely difficult to read, and very trying to eyes which are growing weak. However, I collated the Upanishad from the Aitareya-arazyaka, which turned out to be the last portion only, viz. the Samhita-upanishad (Ait. Ar. III, 1-2), or, as it is called here, Samhitarazya, and I am sorry to say my expectations have been disappointed. The MS. shows certain graphic peculiarities which Dr. Biihler has pointed out. It is particularly careful in the use of the sibilants, replacing the Visarga by sibilants, writing s+s and s+'s instead of 4+s and Ak+s; distinguishing also the Gihvamiliya and Upadhmaniya. If therefore the MS. writes antastha, we may be sure that it really meant to write so, and not antaAstha, or, as it would have written, antasstha. It shows equal care in the use of the nasals, and generally carries on the sandhi between different paragraphs. Here and there I met with better readings than those given in Rajendralal Mitra’s edition, but in most cases the commentary would have been sufficient to restore the right reading. A few various readings, which seemed to deserve being mentioned, will be found

1 Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1877. Extra Number, containing the Detailed Report of a Tour in search of Sanskrit MSS., made in Kasmir, Rajputana, and Central India, by G. Biihler.

INTRODUCTION. xxix

Extra Number, containing the Detailed Report of a Tour in search of Sanskrit MSS., made in Kasmir, Rajputana, and Central India, by G. Biihler.

INTRODUCTION. xxix

in the notes. The MS., though carefully written, is not free from the ordinary blunders. At first one feels inclined to attribute some importance to every peculiarity of a new MS., but very soon one finds out that what seems peculiar, is in reality carelessness. Thus Ait. Ar. III, 1, 5, 2, the Kashmir MS. has pfirvam aksharam ripam, instead of what alone can be right, pirvartpam. Instead of pragay& pasubhi# it writes repeatedly pragaya pasubhi4, which is impossible. In ITE, 2, 2, it leaves out again and again manomaya between £4andomaya and vanimaya; but that this is a mere accident we learn later on, where in the same sentence manomayo is found in its right place. Such cases reduce this MS. to its*proper level, and make us look with suspicion on any accidental variations, such as I have noticed in my translation.

The additional paragraph, noticed by Dr. Biihler, is very indistinct, and contains, so far as I am able to find out, santi verses only.

I have no doubt that the discovery of new MSS. of the Upanishads and their commentaries will throw new light on the very numerous difficulties with which a translator of the Upanishads, particularly in attempting a complete and faithful translation, has at present to grapple. Some of the difficulties, which existed thirty years ago, have been removed since by the general progress of Vedic scholarship, and by the editions of texts and commentaries and translations of Upanishads, many of which were known at that time in manuscript only. But I fully agree with M. Regnaud as to the difficultés considérables que les meilleures traductions laissent subsister, and which can be solved only by a continued study of the Upanishads, the Arayakas, the Brahmaaas, and the Ved4nta-sitras,

MEANING OF THE WORD UPANISHAD.

How Upanishad became the recognised name of the philosophical treatises contained in the Veda is difficult to explain. Most European scholars are agreed in deriving lxxx UPANISHADS.

upa-ni-shad from the root sad, to sit down, preceded by the two prepositions ni, down, and upa, near, so that it would express the idea of session, or assembly of pupils sitting down near their teacher to listen to his instruction. In the Trika#dasesha, upanishad is explained by samipasadana, sitting down near a person !.

In the Trika#dasesha, upanishad is explained by samipasadana, sitting down near a person !.

Such a word, however, would have been applicable, it would seem, to any other portion of the Veda as well as to the chapters called Upanishad, and it has never been explained how its meaning came thus to be restricted. It is still more strange that upanishad, in the sense of session or assembly, has never, so far as I am aware, been met with. Whenever the word occurs, it has the meaning of doctrine, secret doctrine, or is simply used as the title of the philosophic treatises which constitute the gfid4nakavda, the knowledge portion, as opposed to the karmak4zda, the work or ceremonial portion, of the Veda. .

Native philosophers seem never to have thought of deriving upanishad from sad, to sit down. They derive it either from the root sad, in the sense of destruction, supposing these ancient treatises to have received their name because they were intended to destroy passion and ignorance by means of divine revelation®?, or from the root sad, in the sense of approaching, because a knowledge of Brahman comes near to us by means of the Upanishads, or because we approach Brahman by their help. Another explanation proposed by Sankara in his commentary on the Taittirtyaupanishad II, 9, is that the highest bliss is contained in the Upanishad (param sreyo ’sy4m nishannam).

These explanations seem so wilfully perverse that it is difficult to understand the unanimity of native scholars. We ought to take into account, however, that very general tendency among half-educated people, to acquiesce in any etymology which accounts for the most prevalent meaning of a word. The Aranyakas abound in

1 Panini I, 4, 79, has upanishatkritya.

* M. M., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 318; Colebrooke, Essays, I, 92; Regnaud, Matériaux, p. 7.

INTRODUCTION. Ixxxi

such etymologies, which probably were never intended as real etymologies, in our sense of the word, but simply as plays on words, helping to account somehow for their meaning. The Upanishads, no doubt, were meant to destroy ignorance and passion, and nothing seemed more natural therefore than that their etymological meaning should be that of destroyers}.

The history and the genius of the Sanskrit language leave little doubt that upanishad meant originally session, particularly a session consisting of pupils, assembled at a respectful distance round their teacher.

With upa alone, sad occurs as early as the hymns of the Rig-veda, in the sense of approaching respectfully ? :-—

Rig-veda IX, 11, 6. Namasa it upa sidata, ‘approach him with praise.’ See also Rig-veda X, 73, 11; I, 65, 1.

In the Aandogya-upanishad VI, 13, 1, a teacher says to his pupil, atha m4 pratar upasidath4Z, ‘come to me (for advice) to-morrow morning.’

:-—

Rig-veda IX, 11, 6. Namasa it upa sidata, ‘approach him with praise.’ See also Rig-veda X, 73, 11; I, 65, 1.

In the Aandogya-upanishad VI, 13, 1, a teacher says to his pupil, atha m4 pratar upasidath4Z, ‘come to me (for advice) to-morrow morning.’

In the same Upanishad VII, 8, 1, a distinction is made between those who serve their teachers (pariéarita), and those who are admitted to their more intimate society (upasatt4, comm. samipaga/, antarangas, priya).

Again, in the AAandogya-upanishad VII, 1, we read of a pupil approaching his teacher (upasasdda or upasasada), and of the teacher telling him to approach with what he knows, i.e. to tell him first what he has learnt already (yad vettha tena mopasida §).

In the Sftras (Gobhiliya Grzhya-sitra II, 10, 38) upasad is the recognised term for the position assumed by a pupil with his hands folded and his eyes looking up to the teacher who is to instruct him.

It should be stated, however, that no passage has yet been met with in which upa-ni-sad is used in the sense of pupils approaching and listening to their teacher. In the

1 The distinction between possible and real etymologies is as modern as that between legend and history.

* See M. M.’s History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 318.

5 See also Khand. Up. VI, 7, 2.

[3] f

Ixxxii UPANISHADS.

only passage in which upanishasd4da occurs (Ait. Ar. II, 2, 1), it is used of Indra sitting down by the side of Visvamitra, and it is curious to observe that both MSS. and commentaries give here upanishasasd4da, an entirely irregular form.

The same is the case with two other roots which are used almost synonymously with sad, viz. 4s and vis. We find upa+4s used to express the position which the pupil occupies when listening to his teacher, e.g. PA. ITI, 4, 72, updsito gurum bhavan, ‘thou hast approached the Guru,’ or upasito gurur bhavata, ‘the Guru has been approached by thee.” We find pari+upa-+ 4s used with regard to relations assembled round the bed of a dying friend, KA#and. Up. VI, 15; or of hungry children sitting round their mother, and likened to people performing the Agnihotra sacrifice (KAand. Up. V, 24, 5). But I have never met with upa-ni-as in that sense.

We likewise find upa-vis used in the sense of sitting down to a discussion (K 4nd. Up. I, 8, 2), but I have never found upa+ni+vis as applied to a pupil listening to his teacher.

The two prepositions upa and ni occur, however, with pat, to fly, in the sense of flying down and settling near a person, K#and. Up. IV, 7,2; FV, 8,2. And the same prepositions joined to the verb sri, impart to it the meaning of sitting down beneath a person, so as to show him respect : Brth. Ar. I, 4,11. ‘Although a king is exalted, he sits down at the end of the sacrifice below the Brahman,’ brahmaivantata upanisrayati.

Up. IV, 7,2; FV, 8,2. And the same prepositions joined to the verb sri, impart to it the meaning of sitting down beneath a person, so as to show him respect : Brth. Ar. I, 4,11. ‘Although a king is exalted, he sits down at the end of the sacrifice below the Brahman,’ brahmaivantata upanisrayati.

Sad, with upa and ni, occurs in upanishddin only, and
has there the meaning of subject, e.g. Satap. Brahm. IX, 4,
3, 3, kshatrdya tad visam adhast4d upanishddinim karoti,
‘he thus makes the Vis (citizen) below, subject to the
Kshatriya.’

Sometimes nishad is used by the side of upanishad, and so far as we can judge, without any difference of meaning }.

All we can say therefore, for the present, is that upani-

* Mahabharata, Santiparva, 1613.

INTRODUCTION. Ixxxiii

shad, besides being the recognised title of certain philosophical treatises, occurs also in the sense of doctrine and of secret doctrine, and that it seems to have assumed this meaning from having been used originally in the sense of session or assembly in which one or more pupils receive instruction from a teacher.

Thus we find the word upanishad used in the Upanishads themselves in the following meanings :

1. Secret or esoteric explanation, whether true or false.

2. Knowledge derived from such explanation.

3. Special rules or observances incumbent on those who have received such knowledge.

4. Title of the books containing such knowledge.

I. Ait. Ar. HI, 1, 6, 3. ‘For this Upanishad, i.e. in order to obtain the information about the true meaning of Sasmhita, Tarukshya served as a cowherd for a whole year.’

Taitt. Up. I, 3. ‘We shall now explain the Upanishad of the Samhita.’

Ait. Ar. IIT, 2, 5, 1. ‘Next follows this Upanishad of the whole speech. True, all these are Upanishads of the whole speech, but this they declare especially.’

Talav. Up. IV, 7."‘As you have asked me to tell you the Upanishad, the Upanishad has now been told you. We have told you the Brahmi Upanishad,’ i.e. the true meaning of Brahman.

In the K#and. Up. III, 11, 3, after the meaning of Brahman has been explained, the text says: ‘To him who thus knows this Brahma upanishad (the secret doctrine of Brahman) the sun does not rise and does not set.’ In the next paragraph brahma itself is used, meaning either Brahman as the object taught in the Upanishad, or, by a slight change of meaning, the Upanishad itself.

KhAnd. Up. I, 13, 4. ‘Speech yields its milk to him who knows this Upanishad (secret doctrine) of the Samans in this wise.’

Kihand. Up. VIII, 8, 4. When Indra and Virokana had both misunderstood the teaching of Pragdpati, he says: ‘They both go away without having perceived and without having known the Self, and whoever of these two, whether f2

Ixxxiv UPANISHADS.

Devas or Asuras, will follow this doctrine (upanishad), will perish.’

When Indra and Virokana had both misunderstood the teaching of Pragdpati, he says: ‘They both go away without having perceived and without having known the Self, and whoever of these two, whether f2

Ixxxiv UPANISHADS.

Devas or Asuras, will follow this doctrine (upanishad), will perish.’

II. In the KA4nd. Up. I, 1, after the deeper meaning of the Udgitha or Om has been described, the advantage of knowing that deeper meaning is put forward, and it is said that the sacrifice which a man performs with knowledge, with faith, and with the Upanishad, i.e. with an understanding of its deeper meaning, is more powerful.

III. In the Taittiriya-upanishad, at the end of the second chapter, called the Brahmanandavalli, and again at the end of the tenth chapter, the text itself says: Ity upanishad, ‘this is the Upanishad, the true doctrine.’

IV. In the Kaushitaki-upanishad II, 1; 2, we read: ‘Let
him not beg, this is the Upanishad for him who knows this.’
Here upanishad stands for vrata or rahasya-vrata, rule.

WORKS ON THE UPANISHADS.

Anquetil Duperron, Oupnek’hat, 1801, 1802. See page clii.

Rammohun Roy, Translation of Several Principal Books,
Passages, and Texts of the Veds. Second edition. London,
1832.

Translation of the Moonduk-Oopunishud of the Uthurvu Ved, p. 23.

Translation of the Céna Upanishad, one of the Chapters of the Sdma Véda,

. 4t. P Translation of the Kut’h-Oopunishud of the Ujoor-Ved, p. 55.

Translation of the Ishopanishad, one of the Chapters of the Yajur Véda, p. 81.

H. T. Colebrooke, Miscellaneous Essays, in three volumes,
1873.

K. J. H. Windischmann, Die Philosophie im Fortgange der Weltgeschichte, 1827-34.

F, W. Windischmann, Sancara, seu de theologumenis
Vedanticorum, 1833.

E. Réer, The Taittirtya, Aitareya, Svet4svatara, Kena tsa, Katka, Prasna, Muadaka, and Mandtkya Upanishads translated ; Bibliotheca Indica. Calcutta, 1853.

Rajendralal Mitra, The AAandogya Upanishad, with extracts from the commentary of Sankara; Bibliotheca Indica. Calcutta, 1862.

Bite yr

INTRODUCTION. Ixxxv

Calcutta, 1853.

Rajendralal Mitra, The AAandogya Upanishad, with extracts from the commentary of Sankara; Bibliotheca Indica. Calcutta, 1862.

Bite yr

INTRODUCTION. Ixxxv

E. B. Cowell, The Kaushitaki - brahmaza - upanishad, edited with an English translation; Bibliotheca Indica. Calcutta, 1861. ~ he ty ke ttarés, in Le Muteon ; E. B. Cowell, The Maitri Upanishad, edited with an Fey. BF/ English translation ; Bibliotheca Indica. Calcutta, 1870. A. Weber, Die Vagrasi#i des Asvaghosha. Berlin, 1860. A. Weber, Die Rama-tapantya Upanishad. Berlin, 1864. A. Weber, Analyse der in Anquetil du Perron’s Ubersetzung enthalten Upanishad; Indische Studien, vol. i, Pp. 247 et seq. A. E. Gough, The Philosophy of the Upanishads ; Calcutta Review, CXXXI. 4 P. Regnaud, Matériaux pour servir 4 l'histoire de la Philosophie de l’Inde. Paris, 1876. Editions of the Upanishads, their commentaries and glosses have been published in the Tattvabodhini patrika, and by Poley (who has also translated several Upanishads into French), by Réer, Cowell, Rajendralal Mitra, Harakandra Vidyabhishaza, Visvanatha Sastri, RAmamaya Tarkaratna, and others. For fuller titles see Gildemeister, Bibliotheca Sanscrita, and E. Haas, Catalogue of \ Sanskrit and Pali Books in the British Museum, s.v. Upa- } nishads.

IXXXVI UPANISHADS.

THE KHANDOGYA-UPANISHAD.

THE KAandogya-upanishad belongs to the Sama-veda. Together with the Brzhad-drazyaka, which belongs to the Yagur-veda, it has contributed the most important materials to what may be called the orthodox philosophy of India, the Vedanta’, i.e. the end, the purpose, the highest object of the Veda. It consists of eight adhy4yas or lectures, and formed part of a KA4ndogya-brahmaza, in which it was preceded by two other adhyayas. While MSS. of the KAandogya-upanishad and its commentary are frequent, no MSS. of the whole Brahmaza has been met with in Europe. Several scholars had actually doubted its existence, but Rajendralal Mitra’, in the Introduction to his translation of the A/andogya-upanishad, states that in India ‘MSS. of the work are easily available, though as yet he has seen no commentary attached to the Brahmaza portion of any one of them.’ ‘According to general accep-

of the work are easily available, though as yet he has seen no commentary attached to the Brahmaza portion of any one of them.’ ‘According to general accep-

1 Vedanta, as a technical term, did not mean originally the last portions of the Veda, or chapters placed, as it were, at the end of a volume of Vedic literature, but the end, i.e. the object, the highest purpose of the Veda. There are, of course, passages, like the one in the Taittirfya-dranyaka (ed. Rajendralal Mitra, p. 820), which have been misunderstood both by native and European scholars, and where vedanta means simply the end of the Veda :—yo vedidau svarak prokto vedante fa pratishthitah, ‘the Om which is pronounced at the beginning of the Veda, and has its place also at the end of the Veda.’ Here vedanta stands simply in opposition to vedadau, and it is impossible to translate it, as Sayana does, by Vedanta or Upanishad. Vedanta, in the sense of philosophy, occurs in the Taittirtya-aranyaka (p. 817), ina verse of the Narfyantyaupanishad, repeated in the Mundaka-upanishad III, 2, 6, and elsewhere, vedantavighanasunistitarthas, ‘ those who have well understood the object of the knowledge arising from the Vedanta,’ not ‘from the last books of the Veda ;’ and Svetasvatara-up. VI, 22, vedfinte paramam guhyam, ‘the highest mystery in _ the Vedanta.’ Afterwards it is used in the plural also, e.g. Kshurikopanishad, ~ 10 (Bibl. Ind. p. 210), pundartketi vedanteshu nigadyate, ‘it is called pundartka in the Vedantas,’ i.e. in the KAandogya and other Upanishads, as the commentator says, but not in the last books of each Veda. A curious passage is found in the Gautama-sfitras XIX, 12, where a distinction seems to be made between Upanishad and Vedanta. Sacred Books, vol. ii, p. 272.

* Khandogya-upanishad, translated by Rajendralal Mitra, Calcutta, 1862, Introduction, p. 17.

INTRODUCTION. Ixxxvii

A curious passage is found in the Gautama-sfitras XIX, 12, where a distinction seems to be made between Upanishad and Vedanta. Sacred Books, vol. ii, p. 272.

* Khandogya-upanishad, translated by Rajendralal Mitra, Calcutta, 1862, Introduction, p. 17.

INTRODUCTION. Ixxxvii

tation,’ he adds, ‘the work embraces ten chapters, of which the first two are reckoned to be the Brahmaza, and the rest is known under the name of AAandogya-upanishad. In their arrangement and style the two portions differ greatly, and judged by them they appear to be productions of very different ages, though both are evidently relics of pretty remote antiquity. Of the two chapters of the KAandogyabrahmaza }, the first includes eight sQktas (hymns) on the ceremony of marriage, and the rites necessary to be observed at the birth of a child. The first skta is intended to be recited when offering an oblation to Agni on the occasion of a marriage, and its object is to pray for prosperity in behalf of the married couple. The second prays for long life, kind relatives, and a numerous progeny. The third is the marriage pledge by which the contracting parties bind themselves to each other. Its spirit may be guessed from a single verse. In talking of the unanimity with which they will dwell, the bridegroom addresses his bride, “ That heart of thine shall be mine, and this heart of mine shall be thine®.”. The fourth and the fifth invoke Agni, Vayu, Kandramas, and Sirya to bless the couple and ensure healthful progeny. The sixth is a mantra for offering an oblation on the birth of a child; and the seventh and the eighth are prayers for its being healthy, wealthy, and powerful, not weak, poor, or mute, and to ensure a profusion of wealth and milch-cows. The first sOkta of the second chapter is addressed to the Earth, Agni, and Indra, with a prayer for wealth, health, and prosperity; the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth are mantras for offering oblations to cattle, the manes, Sdrya, and divers minor deities. The seventh is a curse upon worms, insects, flies, and other nuisances, and the last, the concluding mantra of the marriage ceremony, in which a general blessing is invoked for all concerned.’

After this statement there can be but little doubt that

' It begins, Om, deva savitak, pra suva yagham pra suva yagnhapatim bhagfya. The second begins, yak praky4m disi sarpariga esha te balis.

* Yad etad dhridayam tava tad astu hridayam mama, Yad idam hridayam mama tad astu hridayam tava.

Ixxxviii UPANISHADS.

this Upanishad originally formed part of a Brahmaaa. This may have been called either by a general name, the Brahmava of the Aandogas, the followers of the Sama-veda, or, on account of the prominent place occupied in it by the Upanishad, the Upanishad-brahmanza). In that case it would be one of the eight Brahmazas of the SAma-veda, enumerated by Kumarila Bha¢éa and others?, and called simply Upanishad, scil. Brahmama.

In that case it would be one of the eight Brahmazas of the SAma-veda, enumerated by Kumarila Bha¢éa and others?, and called simply Upanishad, scil. Brahmama.

The text of the Upanishad with the commentary of Sankara and the gloss of Anandagiri has been published in the Bibliotheca Indica. The edition can only claim the character of a manuscript, and of a manuscript not always very correctly read.

A translation of the Upanishad was published, likewise in the Bibliotheca Indica, by Rajendralal Mitra.

It is one of the Upanishads that was translated into Persian under the auspices of Dara Shukoh', and from Persian into French by Anquetil Duperron, in his Oupnekhat, i.e. Secretum Tegendum. Portions of it were translated into English by Colebrooke in his Miscellaneous Essays, into Latin and German by F. W. Windischmann, in his Sankara, seu de theologumenis Vedanticorum (Bonn, 1833), and in a work published by his father, K. J. H. Windischmann, Die Philosophie im Fortgang der Weltgeschichte (Bonn, 1827-34). Professor A. Weber has treated of this Upanishad in his Indische Studien I, 254; likewise M. P. Regnaud in his Matériaux pour servir 4 l'histoire de la philosophie de Inde (Paris, 1876) and Mr. Gough in several articles on ‘the Philosophy of the Upanishads,’ in the Calcutta Review, No. CXXXI.

I have consulted my predecessors whenever there was a serious difficulty to solve in the translation of these ancient texts. These difficulties are very numerous, as those know

' The same name seems, however, to be given to the adhyaya of the Talavakara-brahmana, which contains the Kena-upanishad.

* M. M., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 348. Most valuable information on the literature of the Sama-veda may be found in Dr. Burnell’s editions of the smaller Brahmanas of that Veda.

* M.M., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 325.

INTRODUCTION. Ixxxix

best who have attempted to give complete translations of these ancient texts. It will be seen that my translation differs sometimes very considerably from those of my predecessors. Though I have but seldom entered into any controversy with them, they may rest assured that I have not deviated from them without careful reflection.

II.

THE TALAVAKARA-UPANISHAD.

It will be seen that my translation differs sometimes very considerably from those of my predecessors. Though I have but seldom entered into any controversy with them, they may rest assured that I have not deviated from them without careful reflection.

II.

THE TALAVAKARA-UPANISHAD.

THIS Upanishad is best known by the name of Kenaupanishad, from its first word. The name of brahmiupanishad (IV, 7) can hardly be considered as a title. It means ‘the teaching of Brahman,’ and is used with reference to other Upanishads also'. Sankara, in his commentary, tells us that this Upanishad forms the ninth adhydya of a Brahmaza, or, if we take his words quite literally, he says, ‘the beginning of the ninth adhydya is “the Upanishad beginning with the words Keneshitam, and treating of the Highest Brahman has to be taught.”’ In the eight preceeding adhydyas, he tells us, all the sacred rites or sacrifices had been fully explained, and likewise the meditations (upasana) on the praza (vital breath) which belongs to all these sacrifices, and those meditations also which have reference to the fivefold and sevenfold SAmans. After that followed Gayatra-saman and the Vamsa, the genealogical list. All this would naturally form the subject of a Sama-veda-brahmaza, and we find portions corresponding to the description given by Sankara in the K/andogya-upanishad, e. g. the fivefold Saman, II, 2; the sevenfold SAdman, II, 8; the Gayatra-saman, ITI, 12, 1.

Anandagfi4na tells us that our Upanishad belonged to the Sakha of the Talavakaras.

All this had formerly to be taken on trust, because no Brahmaza was known containing the Upanishad. Dr. Burnell, however, has lately discovered a Brahmana of the SAma-veda which comes very near the description given by Sankara. In a letter dated Tanjore, 8th Dec. 1878, he

1 See before, p. Ixxxiii.

xc UPANISHADS.

writes: ‘It appears to me that you would be glad to know the following about the Kena-upanishad, as it occurs in my MS. of the Talavakara-brahmaza.

‘The last book but one of this Brahmavza is termed Upanishad-brahmama. It consists of 145 khamdas treating of the GAayatra-sdman, and the 134th is a Vamsa. The Kena-upanishad comprises the 135-145 khazdas, or the tenth anuvaka of a chapter. The 139th section begins: 4s va idam agra sit, &c.

‘My MS. of the Talavak4ra-brahmama agrees, as regards the contents, exactly with what Sankara says, but not in the divisions. He says that the Kena-upanishad begins the ninth adhydya, but that is not so in my MS. Neither the beginning nor the end of this Upanishad is noticed particularly.

‘The last book of this Brahmavza is the Arsheya-brahmaa, which I printed last February.

He says that the Kena-upanishad begins the ninth adhydya, but that is not so in my MS. Neither the beginning nor the end of this Upanishad is noticed particularly.

‘The last book of this Brahmavza is the Arsheya-brahmaa, which I printed last February.

‘Among the teachers quoted in the Brahmaza I have noticed both Tazdya and Satyayani. I should not be surprised to find in it the difficult quotations which are incorrectly given in the MSS. of Sayaza’s commentary on the Rig-veda. The story of Apala, quoted by Sayama in his commentary on the Rig-veda, VIII, 80, as from the Satydyanaka, is found word for word, except some trivial var. lectiones, in sections 220-221 of the Agnishfoma book of the Talavakara-brahmaza. The SAtyAyanins seem to be closely connected with the Talavakdra-sakha.’

From a communication made by Dr. Burnell to the Academy (1 Feb. 79), I gather that this Talavak4ra-brahmama is called by those who study it ‘ Gaiminiya-brahmaaa,’ after the S4kha4 of the SAma-veda which they follow. The account given in the Academy differs on some particulars slightly from that given in Dr. Burnell’s letter to me. He writes: ‘The largest part of the Brahmama treats of the sacrifices and the Samans used at them. The first chapter is on the Agnihotra, and the Agnishéoma and other rites follow at great length, Then comes a book termed Upanishad-brahmama. This contains 145 sections in four chapters. It begins with speculations on the Gdayatra-

INTRODUCTION. xci

saman, followed by a Vamsa; next, some similar matter and another Vamsa. Then (§§ 135-138) comes the Kenaupanishad (Talavakara). The last book is the Arsheya. The Upanishad forms the tenth anuvaka of the fourth chapter, not the beginning of a ninth chapter, as Sankara remarks,’

The Kena-upanishad has been frequently published and translated. It forms part of Dara Shukoh’s Persian, and Anquetil Duperron’s Latin translations. It was several times published in English by Rammohun Roy (Translations of Several Principal Books, Passages, and Texts of the Veda, London, 1832, p. 41), in German by Windischmann, Poley, and others. It has been more or less fully discussed by Colebrooke, Windischmann, Poley, Weber, Réer, Gough, and Regnaud in the books mentioned before.

Besides the text of this Upanishad contained in the Brahmana of the SAma-veda, there is another text, slightly differing, belonging to the Atharva-veda, and there are commentaries on both texts (Colebrooke, Misc. Essays, 1873, II, p. 80).

III.
THE AITAREYA-ARANYAKA.

IN giving a translation of the Aitareya-upanishad, I found it necessary to give at the same time a translation of that portion of the Aitareya-4razyaka which precedes the Upanishad. The Arazyakas seem to have been from the beginning the proper repositories of the ancient Upanishads, though it is difficult at first sight to find out in what relation the Upanishads stood to the Arazyakas. The Arazyakas are to be read and studied, not in the village (grame), but in the forest, and so are the Upanishads. But the subjects treated in the Upanishads belong to a very different order from those treated in the other portions of the Arayakas, the former being philosophical, the latter liturgical.

The liturgical chapters of the Arazyakas might quite as well have formed part of the Brahmazas, and but for the restriction that they are to be read in the forest, it is difficult to distinguish between them and the Brahmamas. The

XCii UPANISHADS.

first chapter of the Aitareya-drazyaka is a mere continuation of the Aitareya-brahmama, and gives the description of the Mahavrata, the last day but one of the Gavamayana, a sattra or sacrifice which is supposed to last a whole year. The duties which are to be performed by the Hotzz priests are described in the Aitareya-arazyaka ; not all, however, but those only which are peculiar to the Mahavrata day. The general rules for the performance of the MahAvrata are to be taken over from other sacrifices, such as the Visvagit, Katurvimsa, &c., which form the type (prakriti) of the Mahavrata. Thus the two sastras or recitations, called 4gya-praiiga, are taken over from the Visvagit, the sastras of the Hotrakas from the Katurvimsa, The MahAvrata is treated here as belonging to the Gavamayana sattra, which is described in a different SAkha, see Taittirtya Samhita VII, 5, 8, and partly in other Vedas. It is the day preceding the udayaniya, the last day of the sattra. It can be celebrated, however, by itself also, as an ekAha or ahina sacrifice, and in the latter case it is the tenth day of the Ekadasaratra (eleven nights sacrifice) called Pusdarika.

S4yana does not hesitate to speak of the Aitareyaaravyaka as a part of the Brahmaza'; and a still earlier authority, Sankara, by calling the Aitareya-upanishad by the name of Bahvrita-brahmava-upanishad ?, seems to imply that both the Upanishad and the Arazyaka may be classed as Brahmama.

The Aitareya-4razyaka appears at first sight a miscellaneous work, consisting of liturgical treatises in the first, fourth, and fifth Arazyakas, and of three Upanishads, in the second and third Aranyakas. This, however, is not the case. The first Arazyaka is purely liturgical, giving a description of the Mah4vrata, so far as it concerns the

- Hotz? priest. It is written in the ordinary Brahmaza style.

Then follows the first Upanishad, Arazyaka II, 1-3, showing

* Aitareyabrahmane ’sti kéndam franyakabhidham (introduction), a remark which he repeats in the fifth Aranyaka. He also speaks of the Arasyakavratariipam brahmanam ; see p. cxiv, 1]. 24.

* In the same manner the Kaushitaki-upanishad is properly called Kaushitakibréhmaza-upanishad, though occurring in the Aranyaka ; see Kaushftaki-brahmana-upanishad, ed. Cowell, p. 30.

INTRODUCTION. Xcill

how certain portions of the Mahavrata, as described in the first Arazyaka, can be made to suggest a deeper meaning, and ought to lead the mind of the sacrificer away from the purely outward ceremonial to meditation on higher subjects. Without a knowledge of the first Arayaka therefore the first Upanishad would be almost unintelligible, and though its translation was extremely tedious, it could not well have been omitted.

The second and third Upanishads are not connected with the ceremonial of the Mah4vrata, but in the fourth and fifth Arazyakas the Mahavrata forms again the principal subject, treated, however, not as before in the style of the Brahmazas, but in the style of Satras. The fourth Aranyaka contains nothing but a list of the Mah4ndmni hymns}, but the fifth describes the Mah4vrata again, so that if the first Arazyaka may be looked upon as a portion of the Aitareya-brahmamas, the fifth could best be classed with the Satras of Asvalayana.

To a certain extent this fact, the composite character of the Aitareya-aramyaka, is recognised even by native scholars, who generally do not trouble themselves much on such questions. They look both on the Aitareya-brahmamza and on the greater portion of Aitareya-fraxyaka as the works of an inspired Rishi, Mahidasa Aitareya?, but they consider the fourth and fifth books of the Aranyaka as contributed by purely human authors, such as Asvalayana and Saunaka, who, like other Sdtrak4ras, took in verses belonging to other SAkh4s, and did not confine their rules to their own SAkh4 only,

There are many legends about Mahid4sa, the reputed author of the Aitareya-brahmama and Arazyaka. He is

He is

1 See Boehtlingk and Roth, s.v. ‘*Neun Vedische Verse die in ihrem vollstandigen Wortlaut aber noch nicht nachgewiesen sind.’ Weber, Indische Studien VIII, 68. How these hymns are to be employed we learn from the Asvalfyanasitras VII, 12, 10, where we are told that if the Udgatris sing the Sakvara Saman as the Prishshastotra, the nine verses beginning with Vida maghavan, and known by the name of Mah&ndmntf, are to be joined in a peculiar manner. The only excuse given, why these Mahanamnis are mentioned here, and not in the Braéhmana, is that they are to be studied in the forest.

2M. M,, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, pp. 177, 335-

XciV UPANISHADS.

quoted several times as Mahid4sa Aitareya in the Aranyaka itself, though not in the Brahmaza. We also meet his name in the K/Aandogya-upanishad (III, 16, 7), where we are told that he lived to an age of 116 years’. All this, however, would only prove that, at the time of the composition or collection of these Arazyakas and Upanishads, a sage was known of the name of Mahid4sa Aitareya, descended possibly from Itara or Itara, and that one text of the Brahmamas and the Arazyakas of the Bahvrizas was handed down in the family of the Aitareyins.

Not content with this apparently very obvious explanation, later theologians tried to discover their own reasons for the name of Aitareya. Thus Sdyava, in his introduction to the Aitareya-brahmama*, tells us that there was once a Rishi who had many wives. One of them was called Itar4, and she had a son called Mahiddsa. His father preferred the sons of his other wives to Mahid4sa, and once he insulted him in the sacrificial hall, by placing his other sons on his lap, but not Mahidasa. Mahid4sa’s mother, seeing her son with tears in his eyes, prayed to her tutelary goddess, the Earth (sviyakuladevata Bhdmiz), and the goddess in her heavenly form appeared in the midst of the assembly, placed Mahid4sa on a throne, and on account of his learning, gave him the gift of knowing the Brahmaaa, consisting of forty adhy4yas, and, as Sayaxa calls it, another Brahmaza, ‘treating of the Aranyaka duties’ (Aranyakavratardpam brahmazam).

Without attaching much value to the legend of Itard, we see at all events that Sayaza considered what we call the Aitareyarazyaka as a kind of Brahmama, not however the whole of it, but only the first, second, and third Aramyakas (atha mah4vratam ity4dikam 4#4rya ak4ry4 ityantam). How easy it was for Hindu theologians to invent such legends we see from another account of Mahid4sa, given by Anandatirtha in his notes on the Aitareya-upani-

* Not 1600 years, as I printed by mistake; for 24+ 44 +48 make 116 years. Rajendralal Mitra should not have corrected his right rendering 116 into 1600. Ait. Ar. Introduction, p. 3.

* M.M., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 336.

INTRODUCTION. XCV

Rajendralal Mitra should not have corrected his right rendering 116 into 1600. Ait. Ar. Introduction, p. 3.

* M.M., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 336.

INTRODUCTION. XCV

shad. He, as Colebrooke was the first to point out, takes Mahidasa ‘to be an incarnation of Narayawa, proceeding from Visdla, son of Abga,’ and he adds, that on the sudden appearance of this.deity at a solemn celebration, the whole assembly of gods and priests (suraviprasangha) fainted, but at the intercession of Brahm4, they were revived, and after making their obeisance, they were instructed in holy science. This avataéra was called Mahid4sa, because those venerable personages (mahin) declared themselves to be his slaves (dasa) ?.

In order properly to understand this legend, we must remember that Anandatirtha, or rather Visvesvaratirtha, whose commentary he explains, treated the whole of the Mahaitareya-upanishad from a Vaishzava point of view, and that his object was to identify Mahiddsa with Nardyawa., He therefore represents Naradyaza or Hari as the avatéra of Visdla, the son of Brahman (abgasuta), who appeared at a sacrifice, as described before, who received then and there the name of Mahid4sa (or Mahidasa), and who taught this Upanishad. Any other person besides Mahid4sa would have been identified with the same ease by Visvesvaratirtha with Vishzu or Bhagavat.

A third legend has been made up out of these two by European scholars who represent Mahid4sa as the son of Visdla and Itar4, two persons who probably never met before, for even the Vaish#ava commentator does not attempt to take liberties with the name of Aitareya, but simply states that the Upanishad was called Aitarey?, from Aitareya.

Leaving these legends for what they are worth, we may at all events retain the fact that, whoever was the author of the Aitareya-brahmama and the first three books of the Aitareya-4razyaka, was not the author of the two concluding Arazyakas. And this is confirmed in different ways. S4yaza, when quoting in his commentary on the Rig-veda from the last books, constantly calls it a Sdtra of Saunaka, while the fourth Araszyaka is specially ascribed

1 Colebrooke, Miscellaneous Essays, 1873, JI, p. 42.

xevi UPANISHADS.

to Asvalayana, the pupil and successor of Saunaka’. These two names of Saunaka and Asvalayana are frequently intermixed. If, however, in certain MSS. the whole of the Aitareya-4ranyaka is sometimes ascribed either to Asvalayana or Saunaka, this is more probably due to the colophon of the fourth and fifth Arazyakas having been mistaken for the title of the whole work than to the fact that such MSS. represent the text of the Arazyaka, as adopted by the school of Asvalayana.

The Aitareya-drazyaka consists of the following five
Aranyakas :

The first Arazyaka has five Adhy4yas :

1. First Adhy4ya, Atha mah&vratam, has four Khandas, 1-4.

a. Second Adhyfya, A tva ratham, has four Khandas, 5-8.

3. Third Adhyaya, Hinkarena, has eight? Khandas, 9-16.

The Aitareya-drazyaka consists of the following five
Aranyakas :

The first Arazyaka has five Adhy4yas :

1. First Adhy4ya, Atha mah&vratam, has four Khandas, 1-4.

a. Second Adhyfya, A tva ratham, has four Khandas, 5-8.

3. Third Adhyaya, Hinkarena, has eight? Khandas, 9-16.

4 Fourth Adhyaya, Atha sfidadoh4h, has three Khandas, 17-19.
5. Fifth Adhyaya, Vasam samsati, has three Khandas, ‘20-22.

The second Aranyaka has seven Adhydyas:

First Adhyfya, Esha panthas, has eight Khandas, 1-8.

. Second Adhyfya, Esha imam lokam, has four Khandas, 9-12.

. Third Adhy4ya, Yo ha va &tm&nam, has eight (not three) Khandas, 13-20.

. Fourth Adhyaya, Atma va idam, has three Khandas, 21-23.

1o. Fifth Adhyaya, Purushe ha va, has one Khanda, 24.

11, Sixth Adhyaya, Ko ’yam &tmeti, has one Khanda, 25.

1a. Seventh Adhy4ya, Va me manasi, has one Khanda, 26.

The third Arazyaka has two Adhy4yas :
| 13. First Adhydya, Athatak samhit4ya upanishat, has six Khandas,
1-6,
L 14. Second Adhyaya, Préso vamsa iti sthavirak Sakalyak, has six
Khandas, 7-12.

The fourth Arazyaka has one Adhydya:
. First Adhy4ya, Vida maghavan, has one Khanda (the Mahanaémnf’s).
The fifth Aranyaka has three Adhydyas :

16. First Adhyfya, Mahfvratasya paisavimsatim, has six Khandas,
1-6.

17. Second Adhyfya, (Grivas) Yasyedam, has five Khandas, 7-11.

18. Third Adhyaya, (Or) Indragnt, has four Khandas, 11-14.

ON DN

Aitareya-upanishad

~ on

1M. M., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 235.
9 Not six, as in Rajerdralal Mitra’s edition.

INTRODUCTION, xcvii

With regard to the Upanishad, ‘we must distinguish between the Aitareya-upanishad, properly so-called, which fills the fourth, fifth, and sixth adhydyas of the second Aranyaka, and the Mahaitareya-upanishad ', also called by a more general name Bahvrika-upanishad, which comprises the whole of the second and third Arazyakas.

The Persian translator seems to have confined himself to the second Arazyaka?, to which he gives various titles, Sarbsar, Asarbeh, Antrteheh. That Antrteheh 13,251 is a misreading of 1,2! was pointed out long ago by Burnouf, and the same explanation applies probably to w,!, asarbeh, and if to that, then to Sarbsar also, No explanation has ever been given why the Aitareya-upanishad should haye been called Sarvaséra, which Professor Weber thinks was corrupted into Sarbsar. At all events the Aitareyaupanishad is not the Sarvasdra-upanishad, the Oupnek’hat Sarb, more correctly called Sarvopanishatsara, and ascribed either to the Taittirlyaka or to the Atharva-veda*.

The Aitareya-upanishad, properly so called, has been edited and translated in the Bibliotheca Indica by Dr. Réer. The whole of the Aitareya-Arazyaka with Sayana’s commentary was published in the same series by Rajendralal Mitra.