Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
12 For fuller information on Pafikasikha, Kapila, &c., see F. Hall’s Preface to Sénkhya-pravakana-bhashya, p. 9 seq.; Weber, Ind. Stud. I, p. 433. * Weber, Hist. of Indian Literature, p. 236. * This ought to be Kanakavarmam, and I hope will not be identified with the name of Buddha in a former existence.
2INTRODUCTION. xli a Paramarshi, a portion of Vishmu, intended to destroy error in the Krita Yuga, a teacher of the SAnkhya philosophy. Vig#anatman explains the verse rightly, and without any reference to Kapila, the Sankhya teacher. Sankarananda goes a step further, and being evidently fully aware of the misuse that had been made of this passage, even in certain passages of the Mahabhfrata (XII, 13254, 13703), and elsewhere, declares distinctly that kapila cannot be meant for the teacher of the Sankhya (na tu sAnkhyaprazeta kapilak, namamAatrasamyena tadgrahave syd atiprasangah). He is fully aware of the true interpretation, viz. avydkrztasya prathamakaryabhitam kapilam vikitravarnam gfanakriyadsaktyatmakam Hiravyagarbham ityarthaZ, but he yields to another temptation, and seems to prefer another view which makes Kapila VAasudevasyavataérabhitam Sagaraputravam dagdharam, an Avatara of Vasudeva, the burner of the sons of Sagara. What vast conclusions may be drawn from no facts, may be seen in Weber’s Indische Studien, vol. i, p. 430, and even in his History of Indian Literature, published in 1878. Far more difficult to explain than these supposed allusions to the authors and to the teaching of the Sankhya philosophy are the frequent references in the Svetasvataraupanishad to definite numbers, which are supposed to point to certain classes of subjects as arranged in the Sankhya and other systems of philosophy. The Sankhya philosophy is fond of counting and arranging, and its very name is sometimes supposed to have been chosen because it numbers (sankhy4) the subjects of which it treats. It is certainly true that if we meet, as we do in the Svetasvatara-upanishad, with classes of things1, numbered as one, two, three. five, eight, sixteen, twenty, forty-eight, fifty and more, and if some of these numbers agree with those recognised in the later Sankhya and Yoga systems, we feel doubtful as to whether these coincidences are accidental, or whether, if not accidental, they are due to borrowing on the part of those later systems, or on the part of the Upanishads. I feel
3? See I, 4; 5; VI, 3. xlil UPANISHADS. it impossible to come to a decision on this point. Even so early as the hymns of the Rig-veda we meet with these numbers assigned to days and months and seasons, rivers and countries, sacrifices and deities. They clearly prove the existence of a considerable amount of intellectual labour which had become fixed and traditional before the composition of certain hymns, and they prove the same in the case of certain Upanishads. But beyond this, for the present, I should not like to go; and I must say that the attempts of most of the Indian commentators at explaining such numbers by a reference to later systems of philosophy or cosmology, are generally very forced and unsatisfactory. One more point I ought to mention as indicating the age of the Svetasvatara-upanishad, and that is the obscurity of many of its verses, which may be due to a corruption of the text, and the number of various readings, recognised as such, by the commentators. Some of them have been mentioned in the notes to my translation. The text of this Upanishad was printed by Dr. Roer in the Bibliotheca Indica, with Sankara’s commentary. I have consulted besides, the commentary of Vig#4ndtman, the pupil of Paramahamsa-parivragakakarya-srimag-Ganottamafarya, MS. I. O. 1133;. and a third commentary, by Sankarananda, the pupil of Paramahamsa-parivragakaharyanandatman, MS. I. O. 1878. These were kindly lent me by Dr. Rost, the learned and liberal librarian of the India Office. VI, PRASNA-UPANISHAD.
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.
12 For fuller information on Pafikasikha, Kapila, &c., see F. Hall’s Preface to Sénkhya-pravakana-bhashya, p. 9 seq.; Weber, Ind. Stud. I, p. 433. * Weber, Hist. of Indian Literature, p. 236. * This ought to be Kanakavarmam, and I hope will not be identified with the name of Buddha in a former existence.
2INTRODUCTION. xli a Paramarshi, a portion of Vishmu, intended to destroy error in the Krita Yuga, a teacher of the SAnkhya philosophy. Vig#anatman explains the verse rightly, and without any reference to Kapila, the Sankhya teacher. Sankarananda goes a step further, and being evidently fully aware of the misuse that had been made of this passage, even in certain passages of the Mahabhfrata (XII, 13254, 13703), and elsewhere, declares distinctly that kapila cannot be meant for the teacher of the Sankhya (na tu sAnkhyaprazeta kapilak, namamAatrasamyena tadgrahave syd atiprasangah). He is fully aware of the true interpretation, viz. avydkrztasya prathamakaryabhitam kapilam vikitravarnam gfanakriyadsaktyatmakam Hiravyagarbham ityarthaZ, but he yields to another temptation, and seems to prefer another view which makes Kapila VAasudevasyavataérabhitam Sagaraputravam dagdharam, an Avatara of Vasudeva, the burner of the sons of Sagara. What vast conclusions may be drawn from no facts, may be seen in Weber’s Indische Studien, vol. i, p. 430, and even in his History of Indian Literature, published in 1878. Far more difficult to explain than these supposed allusions to the authors and to the teaching of the Sankhya philosophy are the frequent references in the Svetasvataraupanishad to definite numbers, which are supposed to point to certain classes of subjects as arranged in the Sankhya and other systems of philosophy. The Sankhya philosophy is fond of counting and arranging, and its very name is sometimes supposed to have been chosen because it numbers (sankhy4) the subjects of which it treats. It is certainly true that if we meet, as we do in the Svetasvatara-upanishad, with classes of things1, numbered as one, two, three. five, eight, sixteen, twenty, forty-eight, fifty and more, and if some of these numbers agree with those recognised in the later Sankhya and Yoga systems, we feel doubtful as to whether these coincidences are accidental, or whether, if not accidental, they are due to borrowing on the part of those later systems, or on the part of the Upanishads. I feel
3? See I, 4; 5; VI, 3. xlil UPANISHADS. it impossible to come to a decision on this point. Even so early as the hymns of the Rig-veda we meet with these numbers assigned to days and months and seasons, rivers and countries, sacrifices and deities. They clearly prove the existence of a considerable amount of intellectual labour which had become fixed and traditional before the composition of certain hymns, and they prove the same in the case of certain Upanishads. But beyond this, for the present, I should not like to go; and I must say that the attempts of most of the Indian commentators at explaining such numbers by a reference to later systems of philosophy or cosmology, are generally very forced and unsatisfactory. One more point I ought to mention as indicating the age of the Svetasvatara-upanishad, and that is the obscurity of many of its verses, which may be due to a corruption of the text, and the number of various readings, recognised as such, by the commentators. Some of them have been mentioned in the notes to my translation. The text of this Upanishad was printed by Dr. Roer in the Bibliotheca Indica, with Sankara’s commentary. I have consulted besides, the commentary of Vig#4ndtman, the pupil of Paramahamsa-parivragakakarya-srimag-Ganottamafarya, MS. I. O. 1133;. and a third commentary, by Sankarananda, the pupil of Paramahamsa-parivragakaharyanandatman, MS. I. O. 1878. These were kindly lent me by Dr. Rost, the learned and liberal librarian of the India Office. VI, PRASNA-UPANISHAD.
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.