Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1THE Svetasvatara-upanishad has been handed down as one of the thirty-three Upanishads of the Taittiriyas, and though this has been doubted, no real argument has ever been brought forward to invalidate the tradition which represents it as belonging to the Taittiriya or Black Yagurveda. It is sometimes called Svetasvatarazim Mantropanishad (p. 274), and is frequently spoken of in the plural, as Svetasvataropanishada#. At the end of the last Adhydya we read that Svetasvatara told it to the best among the hermits, and that it should be kept secret, and not be taught to any one except to a son or a regular pupil. It is also called SvetAsva’, though, it would seem, for the sake of the metre only. The Svetasvataras are mentioned as a Sakha?, subordinate to the Karakas ; but of the literature belonging to them in particular, nothing is ever mentioned beyond this Upanishad. Svetasvatara means a white mule, and as mules were known and prized in India from the earliest times, Svctasvatara, as the name of a person, is no more startling than Svetasva, white horse, an epithet of Arguna. Now as no one would be likely to conclude from the name of one of the celebrated Vedic Rishis, Syavasva, i.e. black horse, that negro influences might be discovered in his hymns, it is hardly necessary to say that all speculations as to Christian influences, or the teaching of white Syro-Christian missionaries, being indicated by the name of Svetasvatara. are groundless *. The Svetd4svatara-upanishad holds a very high rank among the Upanishads. Though we cannot say that it is quoted by name by Badarayama in the Vedanta-sttras, ee 1 V4kaspatyam, p. 1222. 2 Catal. Bodl. p. 2714; p. 222 a. 3 See Weber, Ind. Stud. I, pp. 400, 421. XXXIl UPANISHADS.
2it is distinctly referred to as sruta or revealed’. It is one of the twelve Upanishads chosen by Vidydarazya in his Sarvopanishad-arthanabhitiprakasa, and it was singled out by Sankara as worthy of a special commentary. The Svetasvatara-upanishad seems to me one of the most difficult, and at the same time one of the most interesting works of its kind. Whether on that and on other grounds it should be assigned to a more ancient or to a more modern period is what, in the present state of our knowledge, or, to be honest, of our ignorance of minute chronology during the Vedic period, no true scholar would venture to assert. We must be satisfied to know that, as a class, the Upanishads are presupposed by the Kalpasitras, that some of them, called Mantra-upanishads, form part of the more modern Sammhitds, and that there are portions even in the Rig-veda-samhité? for which the name of Upanishad is claimed by the Anukramamis. We find them most frequent, however, during the Brahmamaperiod, in the Brahmavzas themselves, and, more especially, in those portions which are called Arazyakas, while a large number of them is referred to the Atharva-veda. That, in imitation of older Upanishads, similar treatises were composed to a comparatively recent time, has, of course, long been known 8. But when we approach the question whether among the ancient and genuine Upanishads one may be older than the other, we find that, though we may guess much, we can prove nothing. The Upanishads belonged to Parishads or settlements spread all over India. There is a stock of ideas, even of expressions, common to most of them. Yet, the ideas collected in the Upanishads cannot all have grown up in one and the same place, still less in regular succession. They must have had an independent growth, determined by individual and local influences, and opinions which in one village might seem far advanced, would in another be looked upon as behind the world. We may rae st: ow * See Deussen, Ved ‘nta, p. 24; Ved. Satra I, 1, 11; I, 4,8; I, 3, 2a.
3INTRODUCTION. XXXIli SS admire the ingeniousness of those who sometimes in this, sometimes in that peculiarity see a clear indication of the modern date of an Upanishad, but to a conscientious scholar such arguments are really distasteful for the very sake of their ingeniousness. He knows that they will convince many who do not know the real difficulties; he knows they will have to be got out of the way with no small trouble, and he knows that, even if they should prove true in the end, they will require very different support from what they have hitherto received, before they can be admitted to the narrow circle of scientific facts. While fully admitting therefore that the SvetAsvataraupanishad has its peculiar features and its peculiar difficulties, 1 must most strongly maintain that no argument that has as yet been brought forward, seems to me to prove, in any sense of the word, its modern character. It has been said, for instance, that the Svetasvataraupanishad is a sectarian Upanishad, because, when speaking of the Highest Self or the Highest Brahman, it applies such names to him as Hara (I, 10), Rudra (II, 17; III,2; 4; IV, 12; 21; 22), Siva (III,14; IV, 10), Bhagavat (III, 14), Agni, Aditya, Vayu, &c. (IV, 2). But here it is simply taken for granted that the idea of the Highest Self was developed first, and, afterit had reached its highest purity, was lowered again by an identification with mythological and personal deities. The questions whether the conception of the Highest Self was formed once and once only, whether it was formed after all the personal and mythological deities had first been merged into one Lord (Pragapati), or whether it was discovered behind the vei] of any other name in the mythological pantheon of the past, have never been mooted. Why should not an ancient Rzshi have said: What we have hitherto called Rudra, and what we worship as Agni, or Siva, is in reality the Highest Self, thus leaving much of the ancient mythological phraseology to be used with a new meaning? Why should we at once conclude that late sectarian worshippers of mythological gods replaced again the Highest Self, after their fathers had discovered it, by their own sectaridn names? If we adopt the former
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 Svetasvatara-upanishad has been handed down as one of the thirty-three Upanishads of the Taittiriyas, and though this has been doubted, no real argument has ever been brought forward to invalidate the tradition which represents it as belonging to the Taittiriya or Black Yagurveda. It is sometimes called Svetasvatarazim Mantropanishad (p. 274), and is frequently spoken of in the plural, as Svetasvataropanishada#. At the end of the last Adhydya we read that Svetasvatara told it to the best among the hermits, and that it should be kept secret, and not be taught to any one except to a son or a regular pupil. It is also called SvetAsva’, though, it would seem, for the sake of the metre only. The Svetasvataras are mentioned as a Sakha?, subordinate to the Karakas ; but of the literature belonging to them in particular, nothing is ever mentioned beyond this Upanishad. Svetasvatara means a white mule, and as mules were known and prized in India from the earliest times, Svctasvatara, as the name of a person, is no more startling than Svetasva, white horse, an epithet of Arguna. Now as no one would be likely to conclude from the name of one of the celebrated Vedic Rishis, Syavasva, i.e. black horse, that negro influences might be discovered in his hymns, it is hardly necessary to say that all speculations as to Christian influences, or the teaching of white Syro-Christian missionaries, being indicated by the name of Svetasvatara. are groundless *. The Svetd4svatara-upanishad holds a very high rank among the Upanishads. Though we cannot say that it is quoted by name by Badarayama in the Vedanta-sttras, ee 1 V4kaspatyam, p. 1222. 2 Catal. Bodl. p. 2714; p. 222 a. 3 See Weber, Ind. Stud. I, pp. 400, 421. XXXIl UPANISHADS.
2it is distinctly referred to as sruta or revealed’. It is one of the twelve Upanishads chosen by Vidydarazya in his Sarvopanishad-arthanabhitiprakasa, and it was singled out by Sankara as worthy of a special commentary. The Svetasvatara-upanishad seems to me one of the most difficult, and at the same time one of the most interesting works of its kind. Whether on that and on other grounds it should be assigned to a more ancient or to a more modern period is what, in the present state of our knowledge, or, to be honest, of our ignorance of minute chronology during the Vedic period, no true scholar would venture to assert. We must be satisfied to know that, as a class, the Upanishads are presupposed by the Kalpasitras, that some of them, called Mantra-upanishads, form part of the more modern Sammhitds, and that there are portions even in the Rig-veda-samhité? for which the name of Upanishad is claimed by the Anukramamis. We find them most frequent, however, during the Brahmamaperiod, in the Brahmavzas themselves, and, more especially, in those portions which are called Arazyakas, while a large number of them is referred to the Atharva-veda. That, in imitation of older Upanishads, similar treatises were composed to a comparatively recent time, has, of course, long been known 8. But when we approach the question whether among the ancient and genuine Upanishads one may be older than the other, we find that, though we may guess much, we can prove nothing. The Upanishads belonged to Parishads or settlements spread all over India. There is a stock of ideas, even of expressions, common to most of them. Yet, the ideas collected in the Upanishads cannot all have grown up in one and the same place, still less in regular succession. They must have had an independent growth, determined by individual and local influences, and opinions which in one village might seem far advanced, would in another be looked upon as behind the world. We may rae st: ow * See Deussen, Ved ‘nta, p. 24; Ved. Satra I, 1, 11; I, 4,8; I, 3, 2a.
3INTRODUCTION. XXXIli SS admire the ingeniousness of those who sometimes in this, sometimes in that peculiarity see a clear indication of the modern date of an Upanishad, but to a conscientious scholar such arguments are really distasteful for the very sake of their ingeniousness. He knows that they will convince many who do not know the real difficulties; he knows they will have to be got out of the way with no small trouble, and he knows that, even if they should prove true in the end, they will require very different support from what they have hitherto received, before they can be admitted to the narrow circle of scientific facts. While fully admitting therefore that the SvetAsvataraupanishad has its peculiar features and its peculiar difficulties, 1 must most strongly maintain that no argument that has as yet been brought forward, seems to me to prove, in any sense of the word, its modern character. It has been said, for instance, that the Svetasvataraupanishad is a sectarian Upanishad, because, when speaking of the Highest Self or the Highest Brahman, it applies such names to him as Hara (I, 10), Rudra (II, 17; III,2; 4; IV, 12; 21; 22), Siva (III,14; IV, 10), Bhagavat (III, 14), Agni, Aditya, Vayu, &c. (IV, 2). But here it is simply taken for granted that the idea of the Highest Self was developed first, and, afterit had reached its highest purity, was lowered again by an identification with mythological and personal deities. The questions whether the conception of the Highest Self was formed once and once only, whether it was formed after all the personal and mythological deities had first been merged into one Lord (Pragapati), or whether it was discovered behind the vei] of any other name in the mythological pantheon of the past, have never been mooted. Why should not an ancient Rzshi have said: What we have hitherto called Rudra, and what we worship as Agni, or Siva, is in reality the Highest Self, thus leaving much of the ancient mythological phraseology to be used with a new meaning? Why should we at once conclude that late sectarian worshippers of mythological gods replaced again the Highest Self, after their fathers had discovered it, by their own sectaridn names? If we adopt the former
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.