Müller says plainly what defines his selection, and it is not antiquity: these are "the principal Upanishads TO WHICH SANKARA APPEALS in his great commentary on the Vedânta-Sûtras." The canon of this two-volume translation is one eighth-century commentator's working citation list. He then declines the label that would have hidden the choice: these eleven "have sometimes been called the old and genuine Upanishads, though I should be satisfied to call them the eleven classical Upanishads, or the fundamental Upanishads of the Vedânta philosophy." Refusing the word "genuine" is the whole of the difference.
The Upanishads, Part II — SBE Vol. 15 — trans. F. Max Müller (1884)
Open to all
page 2
The translator’s English as printed. The original-language text is not held; names are romanised as the translator printed them.
THIS second volume completes the translation of the principal Upanishads to which Sankara appeals in his great commentary on the Veddnta-Sitras!, viz. : 1. KAandogya-upanishad, 2. Talavakara or Kena-upanishad, 3. Aitareya-upanishad, 4. Kaushitaki-upanishad, 5. Vagasaneyi or fsa-upanishad, 6. Katha-upanishad, 7- Muzdaka-upanishad, 8. Taittiriyaka-upanishad, 9. Brzhadarazyaka-upanishad, 10, Svetasvatara-upanishad, 11. Prasna-upanishad. These eleven have sometimes? been called the old and genuine Upanishads, though I should be satisfied to call themi the eleven classical Upanishads, or the fundamental Upanishads of the Vedanta philosophy. Vidydranya', in his ‘Elucidation of the meaning of all the Upanishads,’ Sarvopanishadarthanubhdti-prak4sa, confines himself likewise to those treatises, dropping, however, the [s4, and adding the Maitrayaza-upanishad, of which I have given a translation in this volume, and the Nvisimhottara-tapaniya-upanishad, the translation of which had to be reserved for thé next volume.
1 See Deussen, Vedanta, Einleitung, p. 38. Sankara occasionally refers also to the Paingi, Agnirahasya, Gabala, and Nardyaziya Upanishads. 2 Deussen, loc. cit. p. 82. * I state this on the authority of Professor Cowell. See also Fitzedward Hall, Index to the Bibliography of the Indian Philosophical Systems, pp. 116 and 236.
x UPANISHADS.
It is more difficult to determine which of the Upanishads were chosen by Sankara or deserving the honour of a special commentary. We possess his commentaries on the eleven Upanishads mentioned before, with the exception of the Kaushitaki?-upanishad. We likewise possess his commentary on the Mamddkya-upanishad, but we do not know for certain whether he left commentaries on any of the other Upanishads. Some more or less authoritative statements have been made that he wrote commentaries on some of the minor Upanishads, such as the Atharvasiras, Atharva-sikha, and the Nrzsimhatapani*. But as, besides Sankardfarya, the disciple of Govinda, there is Sankarananda, the disciple of Anandatman, another writer of commentaries on the Upanishads, it is possible that the two names may have been confounded by less careful copyists *. With regard to the Nrzsimhatapani all uncertainty might seem to be removed, after Professor Ramamaya Tarkaratna has actually published its text with the commentary of Sankarakarya in the Bibliotheca Indica, Calcutta, 1871. But some uncertainty still remains. While at the end of each Khazda of the Nrisimha-pdrvatapani we read that the Bhashya was the work of the Paramahamsa-parivragakakarya Sri-Sankara, the pupil of Govinda, we have no such information for the Nvrésimha-uttaratapani, but are told on the contrary that the words Sri-Govindabhagavat &c. have been added at the end by the editor, because he thought fit to do so. This is, to say the least, very suspicious, and we must wait for further confirmation. There is another commentary on this Upanishad by Narayamabha/fa, the son of Bha/ta Ratnakara®, who is well known as the author of Dipikas on several Upanishads.
a EE ee
page 2
THIS second volume completes the translation of the principal Upanishads to which Sankara appeals in his great commentary on the Veddnta-Sitras!, viz. : 1. KAandogya-upanishad, 2. Talavakara or Kena-upanishad, 3. Aitareya-upanishad, 4. Kaushitaki-upanishad, 5. Vagasaneyi or fsa-upanishad, 6. Katha-upanishad, 7- Muzdaka-upanishad, 8. Taittiriyaka-upanishad, 9. Brzhadarazyaka-upanishad, 10, Svetasvatara-upanishad, 11. Prasna-upanishad. These eleven have sometimes? been called the old and genuine Upanishads, though I should be satisfied to call themi the eleven classical Upanishads, or the fundamental Upanishads of the Vedanta philosophy. Vidydranya', in his ‘Elucidation of the meaning of all the Upanishads,’ Sarvopanishadarthanubhdti-prak4sa, confines himself likewise to those treatises, dropping, however, the [s4, and adding the Maitrayaza-upanishad, of which I have given a translation in this volume, and the Nvisimhottara-tapaniya-upanishad, the translation of which had to be reserved for thé next volume.
1 See Deussen, Vedanta, Einleitung, p. 38. Sankara occasionally refers also to the Paingi, Agnirahasya, Gabala, and Nardyaziya Upanishads. 2 Deussen, loc. cit. p. 82. * I state this on the authority of Professor Cowell. See also Fitzedward Hall, Index to the Bibliography of the Indian Philosophical Systems, pp. 116 and 236.
x UPANISHADS.
It is more difficult to determine which of the Upanishads were chosen by Sankara or deserving the honour of a special commentary. We possess his commentaries on the eleven Upanishads mentioned before, with the exception of the Kaushitaki?-upanishad. We likewise possess his commentary on the Mamddkya-upanishad, but we do not know for certain whether he left commentaries on any of the other Upanishads. Some more or less authoritative statements have been made that he wrote commentaries on some of the minor Upanishads, such as the Atharvasiras, Atharva-sikha, and the Nrzsimhatapani*. But as, besides Sankardfarya, the disciple of Govinda, there is Sankarananda, the disciple of Anandatman, another writer of commentaries on the Upanishads, it is possible that the two names may have been confounded by less careful copyists *. With regard to the Nrzsimhatapani all uncertainty might seem to be removed, after Professor Ramamaya Tarkaratna has actually published its text with the commentary of Sankarakarya in the Bibliotheca Indica, Calcutta, 1871. But some uncertainty still remains. While at the end of each Khazda of the Nrisimha-pdrvatapani we read that the Bhashya was the work of the Paramahamsa-parivragakakarya Sri-Sankara, the pupil of Govinda, we have no such information for the Nvrésimha-uttaratapani, but are told on the contrary that the words Sri-Govindabhagavat &c. have been added at the end by the editor, because he thought fit to do so. This is, to say the least, very suspicious, and we must wait for further confirmation. There is another commentary on this Upanishad by Narayamabha/fa, the son of Bha/ta Ratnakara®, who is well known as the author of Dipikas on several Upanishads.
a EE ee
And a rival canon from inside the tradition is set beside it rather than harmonised away. Vidyâranya, in his Elucidation of the meaning of all the Upanishads, "confines himself likewise to those treatises, dropping, however, the Îsâ, and adding the Maitrâyana-upanishad ... and the Nrisimhottara-tâpanîya-upanishad." One dropped, two added. Two indigenous lists that do not agree, printed together, with no attempt to declare either the real one.
THEN THE THIRD NAMING FAILURE THIS SERIES DOCUMENTS, and the one this repository has produced most often. Commentaries are attributed to Sankara that may not be his, and Müller gives the mechanism: "besides Sankarâchârya, the disciple of Govinda, there is Sankarânanda, the disciple of Ânandâtman, another writer of commentaries on the Upanishads, [so] it is possible that the two names may have been CONFOUNDED BY LESS CAREFUL COPYISTS." Two people collapsed into one by similarity of name. Beal's hazard was one title over several works; Darmesteter's was a title that misdescribes its contents; this is the third, and between them they cover every way a catalogue can lie about what it holds.
shares a method with The Fo-sho-hing-tsan-king: A Life of Buddha — SBE Vol. 19 (trans. Samuel Beal, 1883)
He then shows that publication does not settle it. "With regard to the Nrisimhatâpanî all uncertainty MIGHT SEEM to be removed, after Professor Râmamaya Tarkaratna has actually published its text with the commentary of Sankarâkârya in the Bibliotheca Indica, Calcutta, 1871. But some uncertainty still remains" — because the colophons inside the volume do not consistently say what the title page says. An attribution printed on a modern edition is a claim, not a proof, and the evidence for it is still inside the book.