Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Corruptions, 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.
2That 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
3Here 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.
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.
1Corruptions, 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.
2That 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
3Here 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.
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.