Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Thus 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
2I 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.
3Aamamsy 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.
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.
1Thus 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
2I 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.
3Aamamsy 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.
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.