Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1THIS Upanishad is called the Pras#a or Shat¢-pras#aupanishad, and at the end of a chapter we find occasionally iti pras#aprativakanam, i.e. thus ends the answer to the question. It is ascribed to the Atharva-veda, and occasionally to the Pippalada-sakha, one of the most important sakhds of that Veda. Pippalada is mentioned in the Upanishad as the name of the principal teacher. Sankara, in the beginning of his commentary, says: INTRODUCTION. xliii Mantroktasyarthasya vistaranuvadidam Brahmavam 4rabhyate, which would mean ‘this Brahmaza is commenced as more fully repeating what has been declared in the Mantra.’ This, however, does not, I believe, refer to a Mantra or hymn in the Atharva-veda-samhita, but to the Muzdaka-upanishad, which, as written in verse, is sometimes spoken of as a Mantra, or Mantropanishad. This is also the opinion of Anandagiri, who says, ‘one might think that it was mere repetition (punarukti), if the essence of the Self, which has been explained by the Mantras, were to be taught here again by the Brahmaza.’ For he adds, ‘by the Mantras “ Brahma devanam,” &c.,’ and this is evidently meant for the beginning of the Muzdaka-upanishad, ‘ Brahma devanam.’ Anandagiri refers again to the Muzdaka in order to show that the Praséa is not a mere repetition, and if Sankara calls the beginning of it a Brahmaza, this must be taken in the more general sense of ‘what is not Mantra!.’ Mantropanishad is a name used of several Upanishads which are written in verse, and some of which, like the fsa, have kept their place in the Samhitas. VI. MAITRAYANVA-BRAHMAWA-UPANISHAD.
2IN the case of this Upanishad we must first of all attempt to settle its right title. Professor Cowell, in his edition and translation of it, calls it Maitri or Maitrayaziya-upanishad, and states that it belongs to the Maitrayaziya-sakha of the Black Yagur-veda, and that it formed the concluding portion of a lost Brahmawa of that Sakh4, being preceded by the sacrificial (karma) portion, which consisted of four books. In his MSS. the title varied between Maitry-upanishad and Maitri-sAkha-upanishad. A Poona MS. calls it Maitrayaniya-sakha-upanishad, and a MS. copied for Baron von Eckstein, Maitrayaziyopanishad. I myself in the Alphabetical List of the Upanishads, published in the Journal of 1 Mantravyatiriktabhage tu brahmavasabda, Rig-veda, Sayaza’s Introduction, vol i, p. 23.
3xliv UPANISHADS. ete Eire the German Oriental Society, called it, No. 104, Maitrayana or Maitri-upanishad, i.e. either the Upanishad of the Maitrayanas, or the Upanishad of Maitri, the principal teacher. In a MS. which I received from Dr. Burnell, the title of our Upanishad is Maitrayami-brahmama-upanishad, varying with Maitrayavi-brahmama-upanishad, and Sriyagussakhayam Maitrayaniya-brahmama-upanishad. The next question is by what name this Upanishad is quoted by native authorities. Vidyd4razya, in his Sarvopanishad-arthanubhatiprak4sa', v. 1, speaks of the Maitrayamiyanamni yagushi sakha, and he mentions Maitra (not Maitri) as the author of that Sakha (vv. 55, 150). In the Muktikd-upanishad* we meet with the name of Maitrayazi as the twenty-fourth Upanishad, with the name of Maitreyi as the twenty-ninth; and again, in the list of the sixteen Upanishads of the Sama-veda, we find Maitrayami and Maitreyi as the fourth and fifth. Looking at all this evidence, I think we should come to the conclusion that our Upanishad derives its name from the Sakha of the Maitrayamas, and may therefore be called MaitrAdyavza-upanishad or Maitrayami Upanishad. Maitrayama-brahmama-upanishad seems likewise correct, and Maitrayami - brahmama-upanishad, like Kaushitaki - brahmaza-upanishad and Vagasaneyi-saszhitopanishad, might be defended, if Maitrayanin were known as a further derivative of Maitrayava. If the name is formed from the teacher Maitri or Maitra, the title of Maitri-upanishad would also be correct, but I doubt whether Matri-upanishad would admit of any grammatical justification *. Besides this Maitrayaza-brahmama-upanishad, however, I possess a MS. of what is called the Maitreyopanishad, sent to me likewise by the late Dr. Burnell. It is very short, and contains no more than the substance of the first Prapathaka of the Maitrayavza-brahmama-upanishad. I give
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.
1THIS Upanishad is called the Pras#a or Shat¢-pras#aupanishad, and at the end of a chapter we find occasionally iti pras#aprativakanam, i.e. thus ends the answer to the question. It is ascribed to the Atharva-veda, and occasionally to the Pippalada-sakha, one of the most important sakhds of that Veda. Pippalada is mentioned in the Upanishad as the name of the principal teacher. Sankara, in the beginning of his commentary, says: INTRODUCTION. xliii Mantroktasyarthasya vistaranuvadidam Brahmavam 4rabhyate, which would mean ‘this Brahmaza is commenced as more fully repeating what has been declared in the Mantra.’ This, however, does not, I believe, refer to a Mantra or hymn in the Atharva-veda-samhita, but to the Muzdaka-upanishad, which, as written in verse, is sometimes spoken of as a Mantra, or Mantropanishad. This is also the opinion of Anandagiri, who says, ‘one might think that it was mere repetition (punarukti), if the essence of the Self, which has been explained by the Mantras, were to be taught here again by the Brahmaza.’ For he adds, ‘by the Mantras “ Brahma devanam,” &c.,’ and this is evidently meant for the beginning of the Muzdaka-upanishad, ‘ Brahma devanam.’ Anandagiri refers again to the Muzdaka in order to show that the Praséa is not a mere repetition, and if Sankara calls the beginning of it a Brahmaza, this must be taken in the more general sense of ‘what is not Mantra!.’ Mantropanishad is a name used of several Upanishads which are written in verse, and some of which, like the fsa, have kept their place in the Samhitas. VI. MAITRAYANVA-BRAHMAWA-UPANISHAD.
2IN the case of this Upanishad we must first of all attempt to settle its right title. Professor Cowell, in his edition and translation of it, calls it Maitri or Maitrayaziya-upanishad, and states that it belongs to the Maitrayaziya-sakha of the Black Yagur-veda, and that it formed the concluding portion of a lost Brahmawa of that Sakh4, being preceded by the sacrificial (karma) portion, which consisted of four books. In his MSS. the title varied between Maitry-upanishad and Maitri-sAkha-upanishad. A Poona MS. calls it Maitrayaniya-sakha-upanishad, and a MS. copied for Baron von Eckstein, Maitrayaziyopanishad. I myself in the Alphabetical List of the Upanishads, published in the Journal of 1 Mantravyatiriktabhage tu brahmavasabda, Rig-veda, Sayaza’s Introduction, vol i, p. 23.
3xliv UPANISHADS. ete Eire the German Oriental Society, called it, No. 104, Maitrayana or Maitri-upanishad, i.e. either the Upanishad of the Maitrayanas, or the Upanishad of Maitri, the principal teacher. In a MS. which I received from Dr. Burnell, the title of our Upanishad is Maitrayami-brahmama-upanishad, varying with Maitrayavi-brahmama-upanishad, and Sriyagussakhayam Maitrayaniya-brahmama-upanishad. The next question is by what name this Upanishad is quoted by native authorities. Vidyd4razya, in his Sarvopanishad-arthanubhatiprak4sa', v. 1, speaks of the Maitrayamiyanamni yagushi sakha, and he mentions Maitra (not Maitri) as the author of that Sakha (vv. 55, 150). In the Muktikd-upanishad* we meet with the name of Maitrayazi as the twenty-fourth Upanishad, with the name of Maitreyi as the twenty-ninth; and again, in the list of the sixteen Upanishads of the Sama-veda, we find Maitrayami and Maitreyi as the fourth and fifth. Looking at all this evidence, I think we should come to the conclusion that our Upanishad derives its name from the Sakha of the Maitrayamas, and may therefore be called MaitrAdyavza-upanishad or Maitrayami Upanishad. Maitrayama-brahmama-upanishad seems likewise correct, and Maitrayami - brahmama-upanishad, like Kaushitaki - brahmaza-upanishad and Vagasaneyi-saszhitopanishad, might be defended, if Maitrayanin were known as a further derivative of Maitrayava. If the name is formed from the teacher Maitri or Maitra, the title of Maitri-upanishad would also be correct, but I doubt whether Matri-upanishad would admit of any grammatical justification *. Besides this Maitrayaza-brahmama-upanishad, however, I possess a MS. of what is called the Maitreyopanishad, sent to me likewise by the late Dr. Burnell. It is very short, and contains no more than the substance of the first Prapathaka of the Maitrayavza-brahmama-upanishad. I give
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.