Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1He 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
2Rajendralal 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.
3The 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 A Bahvrika-upanishad _ © 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.
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.
1He 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
2Rajendralal 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.
3The 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 A Bahvrika-upanishad _ © 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.
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.