Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1In our Upanishad, however, fsvara is the creator, and though, philosophically speaking, we should say that he was conceived as phenomenal, yet we must never forget that the phenomenal is the form of the real, and fsvara therefore an aspect of Brahman!. ‘This God,’ says Pramada Dasa Mitra’, ‘is the spirit conscious of the universe. Whilst an extremely limited portion, and that only of the material universe, enters into my consciousness, the whole of the conscious universe, together, of course, with the material one that hangs upon it, enters into the consciousness of God.’ And again, ‘Whilst we (the givatmans) are subject to May4, Maya is subject to fsvara. If we truly know {svara, we know him as Brahman; if we truly know ourselves, we know ourselves as Brahman. This being so, we must not be surprised if sometimes we find Isvara sharply distinguished from Brahman, whilst at other times {svara and Brahman are interchanged.’ Another argument in support of the sectarian character of the Svetasvatara-upanishad is brought forward, not by European students only, but by native scholars, namely, that the very name of Kapila, the reputed founder of the Sankhya philosophy, occurs in it. Now it is quite true that if we read the second verse of the fifth Adhydya by itself, the occurrence of the word Kapila may seem startling. But if we read it in connection with what precedes and follows, we shall see hardly anything unusual in it. It says: ‘It is he who, being one only, rules over every germ (cause), over all forms, and over all germs; it is he who, in the beginning, bears in his thoughts the wise son, the ery, whom he wished to look on while he was born.’ Now it is quite clear to me that the subject in this verse is the same as in IV, 11, where the same words are used, and where yo yoni yonim adhitishthaty eka refers clearly to Brahman. It is equally clear that the prastta, the son, the offspring of Brahman, in the Vedanta sense, can only be the same person who is elsewhere called Hirazyagarbha,
2the personified Brahman. Thus we read before, III, 4, ‘He the creator and supporter of the gods, Rudra, the great seer (maharshi), the lord of all, formerly gave birth to Hirazyagarbha ;’ and in IV, 11, we have the very expression which is used here, namely, ‘that he saw Hiranyagarbha being born.’ Unfortunately, a new adjective is applied in our verse to Hirazyagarbha, namely, kapila, and this has called forth interpretations totally at variance with the general tenor of the Upanishad. If, instead of kapilam, reddish, fiery?, any other epithet had been used of Hirazyagarbha, no one, I believe, would have hesitated for a moment to recognise the fact that our text simply repeats the description of Hirazyagarbha in his relation to Brahman, for the other epithet rzshim, like maharshim, is too often applied to Brahman himself and to Hiranyagarbha to require any explanation. But it is a well known fact that the Hindus, even as early as the Brahmava-period, were fond of tracing their various branches of knowledge back to Brahman or to Brahman Svayambha and then through Pragdpati, who even in the Rig-veda (X, 121, 10) replaces Hiravyagarbha, and sometimes through the Devas, such as Mrztyu, Vayu, Indra Agni *, &c., to the various ancestors of their ancient families. In the beginning of thé Muzdakopanishad we are told that Brahman told it to Atharvan, Atharvan to Angijr, Angir to Satyavaha Bharadvaga, Bharadvaga to Angiras, Angiras to Saunaka. Manu, the ancient lawgiver, is called both Hairazyagarbha and Svayambhuva, as descended from Svayambhu or from Hirazyagarbha*. Nothing therefore was more natural than that the same tendency should have led some one to assign the authorship of a great philosophical system like the Sankhya to Hirazyagarbha, if not to Brahman Svayambha. And if the name of Hiramyagarbha had been used already for the ancestors of other sages, and the inspirers of other systems, what could be more natural than that another name of the same Hiranya-
3garbha should be chosen, such as Kapila. If we are told that Kapila handed his knowledge to Asuri, Asuri to Pazkasikha, this again is in perfect keeping with the character of literary tradition in India. Asuri occurs in the Vamsas of the Satapatha-brahmama (see above, pp. 187, 226) ; Pa#kasikha !, having five tufts, might be either a general name or a proper name of an ascetic, Buddhist or otherwise. He is quoted in the Saénkhya-sadtras, V, 32; VI, 68. But after all this was settled, after Kapila had been accepted, like Hirawyagarbha, as the founder of a great system of philosophy, there came a reaction. People had now learnt to believe in a real Kapila, and when looking out for credentials for him, they found them wherever the word Kapila occurred in old writings. The question whether there ever was a real historical person who took the name of Kapila and taught the Sankhya-sitras, does not concern us here. I see no evidence for it. What is instructive is this, that our very passage, which may have suggested at first the name of Kapila, as distinct from Hirazyagarbha Kapila, was later on appealed to to prove the primordial existence of a Kapila, the founder of the Sankhya philosophy. However, it requires but a very slight acquaintance with Sanskrit literature and very little reflection in order to see that the author of our verse could never have dreamt of elevating a certain Kapila, known to him as a great philosopher, if there ever was such a man, to a divine rank 2. Hirazyagarbha kapila may have given birth to Kapila, the hero of the Sankhya philosophers, but Kapila, a real human person, was never changed into Hirazyagarbha kapila. Let us see now what the commentators say. Sankara first explains kapilam by kanakam kapilavarzam.... Hiramyagarbham. Kapilo ’graga iti purdmavakanat. Kapilo Hirazyagarbho va nirdisyate. But he afterwards quotes some verses in support of the theory that Kapila was a
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.
1In our Upanishad, however, fsvara is the creator, and though, philosophically speaking, we should say that he was conceived as phenomenal, yet we must never forget that the phenomenal is the form of the real, and fsvara therefore an aspect of Brahman!. ‘This God,’ says Pramada Dasa Mitra’, ‘is the spirit conscious of the universe. Whilst an extremely limited portion, and that only of the material universe, enters into my consciousness, the whole of the conscious universe, together, of course, with the material one that hangs upon it, enters into the consciousness of God.’ And again, ‘Whilst we (the givatmans) are subject to May4, Maya is subject to fsvara. If we truly know {svara, we know him as Brahman; if we truly know ourselves, we know ourselves as Brahman. This being so, we must not be surprised if sometimes we find Isvara sharply distinguished from Brahman, whilst at other times {svara and Brahman are interchanged.’ Another argument in support of the sectarian character of the Svetasvatara-upanishad is brought forward, not by European students only, but by native scholars, namely, that the very name of Kapila, the reputed founder of the Sankhya philosophy, occurs in it. Now it is quite true that if we read the second verse of the fifth Adhydya by itself, the occurrence of the word Kapila may seem startling. But if we read it in connection with what precedes and follows, we shall see hardly anything unusual in it. It says: ‘It is he who, being one only, rules over every germ (cause), over all forms, and over all germs; it is he who, in the beginning, bears in his thoughts the wise son, the ery, whom he wished to look on while he was born.’ Now it is quite clear to me that the subject in this verse is the same as in IV, 11, where the same words are used, and where yo yoni yonim adhitishthaty eka refers clearly to Brahman. It is equally clear that the prastta, the son, the offspring of Brahman, in the Vedanta sense, can only be the same person who is elsewhere called Hirazyagarbha,
2the personified Brahman. Thus we read before, III, 4, ‘He the creator and supporter of the gods, Rudra, the great seer (maharshi), the lord of all, formerly gave birth to Hirazyagarbha ;’ and in IV, 11, we have the very expression which is used here, namely, ‘that he saw Hiranyagarbha being born.’ Unfortunately, a new adjective is applied in our verse to Hirazyagarbha, namely, kapila, and this has called forth interpretations totally at variance with the general tenor of the Upanishad. If, instead of kapilam, reddish, fiery?, any other epithet had been used of Hirazyagarbha, no one, I believe, would have hesitated for a moment to recognise the fact that our text simply repeats the description of Hirazyagarbha in his relation to Brahman, for the other epithet rzshim, like maharshim, is too often applied to Brahman himself and to Hiranyagarbha to require any explanation. But it is a well known fact that the Hindus, even as early as the Brahmava-period, were fond of tracing their various branches of knowledge back to Brahman or to Brahman Svayambha and then through Pragdpati, who even in the Rig-veda (X, 121, 10) replaces Hiravyagarbha, and sometimes through the Devas, such as Mrztyu, Vayu, Indra Agni *, &c., to the various ancestors of their ancient families. In the beginning of thé Muzdakopanishad we are told that Brahman told it to Atharvan, Atharvan to Angijr, Angir to Satyavaha Bharadvaga, Bharadvaga to Angiras, Angiras to Saunaka. Manu, the ancient lawgiver, is called both Hairazyagarbha and Svayambhuva, as descended from Svayambhu or from Hirazyagarbha*. Nothing therefore was more natural than that the same tendency should have led some one to assign the authorship of a great philosophical system like the Sankhya to Hirazyagarbha, if not to Brahman Svayambha. And if the name of Hiramyagarbha had been used already for the ancestors of other sages, and the inspirers of other systems, what could be more natural than that another name of the same Hiranya-
3garbha should be chosen, such as Kapila. If we are told that Kapila handed his knowledge to Asuri, Asuri to Pazkasikha, this again is in perfect keeping with the character of literary tradition in India. Asuri occurs in the Vamsas of the Satapatha-brahmama (see above, pp. 187, 226) ; Pa#kasikha !, having five tufts, might be either a general name or a proper name of an ascetic, Buddhist or otherwise. He is quoted in the Saénkhya-sadtras, V, 32; VI, 68. But after all this was settled, after Kapila had been accepted, like Hirawyagarbha, as the founder of a great system of philosophy, there came a reaction. People had now learnt to believe in a real Kapila, and when looking out for credentials for him, they found them wherever the word Kapila occurred in old writings. The question whether there ever was a real historical person who took the name of Kapila and taught the Sankhya-sitras, does not concern us here. I see no evidence for it. What is instructive is this, that our very passage, which may have suggested at first the name of Kapila, as distinct from Hirazyagarbha Kapila, was later on appealed to to prove the primordial existence of a Kapila, the founder of the Sankhya philosophy. However, it requires but a very slight acquaintance with Sanskrit literature and very little reflection in order to see that the author of our verse could never have dreamt of elevating a certain Kapila, known to him as a great philosopher, if there ever was such a man, to a divine rank 2. Hirazyagarbha kapila may have given birth to Kapila, the hero of the Sankhya philosophers, but Kapila, a real human person, was never changed into Hirazyagarbha kapila. Let us see now what the commentators say. Sankara first explains kapilam by kanakam kapilavarzam.... Hiramyagarbham. Kapilo ’graga iti purdmavakanat. Kapilo Hirazyagarbho va nirdisyate. But he afterwards quotes some verses in support of the theory that Kapila was a
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.