Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1We 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.
2Aitareya-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
3We 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.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1We 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.
2Aitareya-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
3We 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.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.