Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1They 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,
2A 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
3Extra 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 !.
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.
1They 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,
2A 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
3Extra 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 !.
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.