Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The 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. Though I have had several MSS. of the text and commentary at my disposal, I have derived little aid from them, but have throughout endeavoured to restore that text which Sankara (the pupil of Govinda) and Sayana had before them. Sdyama, for the Upanishad portion, follows Sankara’s commentary, of which we have a gloss by Anandagfiana. Colebrooke in his Essays (vol. ii, p. 42) says that he 1 This may have been the origin of a Rishi Mahaitareya, by the side of the Rishi Aitareya, mentioned in the Asvalayana Grihya-sfitras III, 4 (ed. Stenzler). Professor Weber takes Aitareya and Mahaitareya here as names of works, but he admits that in the Saikh4yana Grihya-s(tras they are clearly names of Rishis (Ind. Stud. I, p. 389). * He translates II, 1-II, 3, 4, leaving out the rest of the third adhyaya ; afterwards II, 4-II, 7. ® Bibliotheca Indica, the Atharvaza-upanishads, p. 394. {3] g Xcvili UPANISHADS. possessed one gloss by N4rayazendra on Sankara’s commentary, and another by Anandatirtha on a different gloss for the entire Upanishad. The gloss by Narayazendra’, however, is, so Dr. Rost informs me, the same as that of Anandagiiana, while, so far as I can see, the gloss contained in MS. E. I. H. 2386 (also MS. Wilson 401), to which Colebrooke refers, is not a gloss by Anandatirtha at all, but a gloss by Visvesvaratirtha on a commentary by Anandatirthabhagavatpadaéarya, also called Pirzapragiiaarya, who explained the whole of the Mahaitareya-upanishad from a Vaishzava point of view. IV. THE KAUSHITAKI-BRAHMANA-UPANISHAD. THE Kaushitaki-upanishad, or, as it is more properly called, the Kaushitaki-brahmama-upanishad, belongs, like the Aitareya-upanishad, to the followers of the Rig-veda. It was translated into Persian under the title of Kokhenk, and has been published in the Bibliotheca Indica with Sankarananda’s commentary and an excellent translation by Professor Cowell. Though it is called the Kaushitaki-brahmaza-upanishad, it does not form part of the Kaushitaki-brahmaza in 30 adhy4dyas which we possess, and we must therefore account for its name by admitting that the Arazyaka, of which it formed a portion, could be reckoned as part of the Brahmava literature of the Rig-veda (see Aitareya-aranyaka, Introduction, p. xcii), and that hence the Upanishad might be called the Upanishad of the Brahmamza of the Kaushitakins *, L. From a commentary discovered by Professor Cowell it appears that the four adhy4yas of this Upanishad
2xcii), and that hence the Upanishad might be called the Upanishad of the Brahmamza of the Kaushitakins *, L. From a commentary discovered by Professor Cowell it appears that the four adhy4yas of this Upanishad + AMS. in the Notices of Sanskrit MSS., vol. ii, p. 133, ascribed to Abhinavanrfyanendra, called Atmashaskabhashyasika, begins like the gloss edited by Dr. Roer, and ends like Sayana's commentary on the seventh adhydya, as edited by Rajendralal Mitra. The same name is given in MS. Wilson 94, Stimatkaivalyend rasarasvatip{igyapAdasishya- srimadabhinavanarfyanendrasarasvatt. * A Mah4-kaushitaki-brahmana is quoted, but has not yet been met with. INTRODUCTION. XCix were followed by five other adhy4yas, answering, so far’ as we can judge from a few extracts, to some of the adhyAyas of the Aitareya-4razyaka, while an imperfect MS. of an Aranyaka in the Royal Library at Berlin (Weber, Catalogue, Pp. 20) begins, like the Aitareya-4razyaka, with a description of the Mahavrata, followed by discussions on the uktha in the second adhydya; and then proceeds in the third adhyaya to give the story of Xitra Gaagy4yani in the same words as the Kaushitaki-upanishad in the first adhy4dya. Other MSS. again adopt different divisions. In one MS. of the commentary (MS. A), the four adhydyas of the Upanishad are counted as sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth (ending with ity4razyake navamo ‘dhydya%); in another (MS. P) the third and fourth adhydyas of the Upanishad are quoted as the fifth and sixth of the Kaushitakydrazyaka, possibly agreeing therefore, to a certain extent, with the Berlin MS. In a MS. of the Sankhdayana Aranyaka in the Royal Library at Berlin, there are 15 adhydyas, 1 and 2 corresponding to Ait. Ar. 1 and 5; 3-6 containing the Kaushitaki-upanishad ; 7 and 8 corresponding to Ait. Ar. 31. Poley seems to have known a MS. in which the four adhyd4yas of the Upanishad formed the first, seventh, eighth, and ninth adhydyas of a Kaushitaki-brahmava. As there were various recensions of the Kaushitaki-brahmaza (the Sankh4yana, Kauthuma, &c.), the Upanishad also exists in at least two texts. The commentator, in some of its MSS., refers to the various readings of the Sakhas, explaining them, whenever there seems to be occasion for it. I have generally followed the text which is presupposed by Sankardnanda’s Dipik4, and contained in MSS. F, G (Cowell, Preface, p. v), so far as regards the third and fourth adhy4yas. According to Professor Cowell, Vidydrazya in his Sarvopanishadarthanubhitiprakasa followed the text of the commentary, while Sankarazarya, if we may trust to extracts in his commentary on the Vedanta-sitras, followed the other text, contained in MS. A (Cowell, Preface, p. v). 1 See Weber, History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 50. g2 c UPANISHADS.
3A (Cowell, Preface, p. v). 1 See Weber, History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 50. g2 c UPANISHADS. The style of the commentator differs in so marked a manner from that of Sankardzarya, that even without the fact that the author of the commentary on the Kaushitakiupanishad is called Sankarananda, it would have been difficult to ascribe it, as has been done by some scholars, to the famous Sankaré#arya. Sankarananda is called the teacher of Madhava#arya (Hall, Index, p. 98), and the disciple of Anandatma Muni (Hall, Index, p. 116). I have had the great advantage of being able to consult for the Kaushitaki-upanishad, not only the text and commentary as edited by Professor Cowell, but also his excellent translation. If I differ from him in some points, this is but natural, considering the character of the text and the many difficulties that have still to be solved, before we can hope to arrive at a full understanding of these ancient philosophical treatises. V. THE VAGASANEYI-SAMHITA-UPANISHAD. THE VA4gasaneyi-samhita-upanishad, commonly called ” from its beginning, fs4 or fsAvAsya, forms the fortieth and concluding chapter of the Samhita of the White Yagur-veda. If the Samhités are presupposed by the Brahmamas, at least in that form in which we possess them, then this Upanishad, being the only one that forms part of a Samhita, might claim a very early age. The SamhitA of the White Yagur-veda, however, is acknowledged to be of modern origin, as compared with the Samhita of the Black Yagur-veda, and it would not be safe therefore to ascribe to this Upanishad a much higher antiquity than to those which have found a place in the older Brahmazas and Aranyakas. There are differences between the text, as contained in the Yagur-veda-samhita, and the text of the Upanishad by itself. Those which are of some interest have been mentioned in the notes. In some notes appended to the translation of this Upanishad I have called attention to what seems to me INTRODUCTION. ci its peculiar character, namely, the recognition of the necessity of works as a preparation for the reception of the highest knowledge. This agrees well with the position occupied by this Upanishad at the end of the Samhita, in which the sacrificial works and the hymns that are to accompany them are contained. The doctrine that the moment a man is enlightened, he becomes free, as taught in other Upanishads, led to a rejection of all discipline and a condemnatian of all sacrifices, which could hardly have been tolerated in the last chapter of the Yagur-vedasamhitd, the liturgical Veda par excellence. Other peculiarities of this Upanishad are the name fs, lord, a far more personal name for the highest Being than Brahman; the asurya (demoniacal) or asdrya (sunless) worlds to which all go who have lost their self; MAtarisvan, used in the sense of praza or spirit; asnd4viram, without muscles, in the sense of incorporeal; and the distinction between sambhiti and asambhiti in verses 12-14.
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.
1The 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. Though I have had several MSS. of the text and commentary at my disposal, I have derived little aid from them, but have throughout endeavoured to restore that text which Sankara (the pupil of Govinda) and Sayana had before them. Sdyama, for the Upanishad portion, follows Sankara’s commentary, of which we have a gloss by Anandagfiana. Colebrooke in his Essays (vol. ii, p. 42) says that he 1 This may have been the origin of a Rishi Mahaitareya, by the side of the Rishi Aitareya, mentioned in the Asvalayana Grihya-sfitras III, 4 (ed. Stenzler). Professor Weber takes Aitareya and Mahaitareya here as names of works, but he admits that in the Saikh4yana Grihya-s(tras they are clearly names of Rishis (Ind. Stud. I, p. 389). * He translates II, 1-II, 3, 4, leaving out the rest of the third adhyaya ; afterwards II, 4-II, 7. ® Bibliotheca Indica, the Atharvaza-upanishads, p. 394. {3] g Xcvili UPANISHADS. possessed one gloss by N4rayazendra on Sankara’s commentary, and another by Anandatirtha on a different gloss for the entire Upanishad. The gloss by Narayazendra’, however, is, so Dr. Rost informs me, the same as that of Anandagiiana, while, so far as I can see, the gloss contained in MS. E. I. H. 2386 (also MS. Wilson 401), to which Colebrooke refers, is not a gloss by Anandatirtha at all, but a gloss by Visvesvaratirtha on a commentary by Anandatirthabhagavatpadaéarya, also called Pirzapragiiaarya, who explained the whole of the Mahaitareya-upanishad from a Vaishzava point of view. IV. THE KAUSHITAKI-BRAHMANA-UPANISHAD. THE Kaushitaki-upanishad, or, as it is more properly called, the Kaushitaki-brahmama-upanishad, belongs, like the Aitareya-upanishad, to the followers of the Rig-veda. It was translated into Persian under the title of Kokhenk, and has been published in the Bibliotheca Indica with Sankarananda’s commentary and an excellent translation by Professor Cowell. Though it is called the Kaushitaki-brahmaza-upanishad, it does not form part of the Kaushitaki-brahmaza in 30 adhy4dyas which we possess, and we must therefore account for its name by admitting that the Arazyaka, of which it formed a portion, could be reckoned as part of the Brahmava literature of the Rig-veda (see Aitareya-aranyaka, Introduction, p. xcii), and that hence the Upanishad might be called the Upanishad of the Brahmamza of the Kaushitakins *, L. From a commentary discovered by Professor Cowell it appears that the four adhy4yas of this Upanishad
2xcii), and that hence the Upanishad might be called the Upanishad of the Brahmamza of the Kaushitakins *, L. From a commentary discovered by Professor Cowell it appears that the four adhy4yas of this Upanishad + AMS. in the Notices of Sanskrit MSS., vol. ii, p. 133, ascribed to Abhinavanrfyanendra, called Atmashaskabhashyasika, begins like the gloss edited by Dr. Roer, and ends like Sayana's commentary on the seventh adhydya, as edited by Rajendralal Mitra. The same name is given in MS. Wilson 94, Stimatkaivalyend rasarasvatip{igyapAdasishya- srimadabhinavanarfyanendrasarasvatt. * A Mah4-kaushitaki-brahmana is quoted, but has not yet been met with. INTRODUCTION. XCix were followed by five other adhy4yas, answering, so far’ as we can judge from a few extracts, to some of the adhyAyas of the Aitareya-4razyaka, while an imperfect MS. of an Aranyaka in the Royal Library at Berlin (Weber, Catalogue, Pp. 20) begins, like the Aitareya-4razyaka, with a description of the Mahavrata, followed by discussions on the uktha in the second adhydya; and then proceeds in the third adhyaya to give the story of Xitra Gaagy4yani in the same words as the Kaushitaki-upanishad in the first adhy4dya. Other MSS. again adopt different divisions. In one MS. of the commentary (MS. A), the four adhydyas of the Upanishad are counted as sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth (ending with ity4razyake navamo ‘dhydya%); in another (MS. P) the third and fourth adhydyas of the Upanishad are quoted as the fifth and sixth of the Kaushitakydrazyaka, possibly agreeing therefore, to a certain extent, with the Berlin MS. In a MS. of the Sankhdayana Aranyaka in the Royal Library at Berlin, there are 15 adhydyas, 1 and 2 corresponding to Ait. Ar. 1 and 5; 3-6 containing the Kaushitaki-upanishad ; 7 and 8 corresponding to Ait. Ar. 31. Poley seems to have known a MS. in which the four adhyd4yas of the Upanishad formed the first, seventh, eighth, and ninth adhydyas of a Kaushitaki-brahmava. As there were various recensions of the Kaushitaki-brahmaza (the Sankh4yana, Kauthuma, &c.), the Upanishad also exists in at least two texts. The commentator, in some of its MSS., refers to the various readings of the Sakhas, explaining them, whenever there seems to be occasion for it. I have generally followed the text which is presupposed by Sankardnanda’s Dipik4, and contained in MSS. F, G (Cowell, Preface, p. v), so far as regards the third and fourth adhy4yas. According to Professor Cowell, Vidydrazya in his Sarvopanishadarthanubhitiprakasa followed the text of the commentary, while Sankarazarya, if we may trust to extracts in his commentary on the Vedanta-sitras, followed the other text, contained in MS. A (Cowell, Preface, p. v). 1 See Weber, History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 50. g2 c UPANISHADS.
3A (Cowell, Preface, p. v). 1 See Weber, History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 50. g2 c UPANISHADS. The style of the commentator differs in so marked a manner from that of Sankardzarya, that even without the fact that the author of the commentary on the Kaushitakiupanishad is called Sankarananda, it would have been difficult to ascribe it, as has been done by some scholars, to the famous Sankaré#arya. Sankarananda is called the teacher of Madhava#arya (Hall, Index, p. 98), and the disciple of Anandatma Muni (Hall, Index, p. 116). I have had the great advantage of being able to consult for the Kaushitaki-upanishad, not only the text and commentary as edited by Professor Cowell, but also his excellent translation. If I differ from him in some points, this is but natural, considering the character of the text and the many difficulties that have still to be solved, before we can hope to arrive at a full understanding of these ancient philosophical treatises. V. THE VAGASANEYI-SAMHITA-UPANISHAD. THE VA4gasaneyi-samhita-upanishad, commonly called ” from its beginning, fs4 or fsAvAsya, forms the fortieth and concluding chapter of the Samhita of the White Yagur-veda. If the Samhités are presupposed by the Brahmamas, at least in that form in which we possess them, then this Upanishad, being the only one that forms part of a Samhita, might claim a very early age. The SamhitA of the White Yagur-veda, however, is acknowledged to be of modern origin, as compared with the Samhita of the Black Yagur-veda, and it would not be safe therefore to ascribe to this Upanishad a much higher antiquity than to those which have found a place in the older Brahmazas and Aranyakas. There are differences between the text, as contained in the Yagur-veda-samhita, and the text of the Upanishad by itself. Those which are of some interest have been mentioned in the notes. In some notes appended to the translation of this Upanishad I have called attention to what seems to me INTRODUCTION. ci its peculiar character, namely, the recognition of the necessity of works as a preparation for the reception of the highest knowledge. This agrees well with the position occupied by this Upanishad at the end of the Samhita, in which the sacrificial works and the hymns that are to accompany them are contained. The doctrine that the moment a man is enlightened, he becomes free, as taught in other Upanishads, led to a rejection of all discipline and a condemnatian of all sacrifices, which could hardly have been tolerated in the last chapter of the Yagur-vedasamhitd, the liturgical Veda par excellence. Other peculiarities of this Upanishad are the name fs, lord, a far more personal name for the highest Being than Brahman; the asurya (demoniacal) or asdrya (sunless) worlds to which all go who have lost their self; MAtarisvan, used in the sense of praza or spirit; asnd4viram, without muscles, in the sense of incorporeal; and the distinction between sambhiti and asambhiti in verses 12-14.
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.