Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1* They have been published by Dr. Roer in the Bibliotheca Indica. ? Dr. Weber’s statement that Sankara wrote a commentary on the Kaushitakiupanishad has been corrected by Deussen, loc. cit. P- 39. 3 See Deussen, loc. cit. P- 39. * A long list of works ascribed to Sankara may be seen in Regnaud, Philosophie de I’Inde, p. 34, chiefly taken from Fitzedward Hall’s Index of Indian Philosophical Systems. * See Tarkaratna’s Vigiapana, p. 3, 1. a INTRODUCTION. Xi I subjoin a list of thirty of the smaller Upanishads, published by Professor Ramamaya Tarkaratna in the Bibliotheca Indica, with the commentaries of Narayamabhaf?fa. . Sira-upanishad, pp. 1-10; Dipika by Narayaza,pp. 42-60. . Garbha-upanishad, pp. 11-15; . NAadavindu-upanishad, pp. 15-17; . Brahmavindu-upanishad, pp. 18-20; . Dhydnavindu-upanishad, pp. 26-28 ; . Tegovindu-upanishad, pp. 29-30; a . Yogasikha-upanishad, pp. 31-32; . Yogatattva-upanishad, pp. 33-34; " . Sanny4sa-upanishad, pp. 35-39; - . Aruneya-upanishad, pp. 39-41; + . Brahmavidy4-upanishad, pp. 197-203; ,, . Kshurikd-upanishad, pp. 203-218; rs . Kdlika-upanishad, pp. 219-228; : Amritavindu-upanishad, pp. 21-25; . Atharvasikha-upanishad, pp. 229-238; ,, . Brahma-upanishad, pp. 239-259; A . PramAgnihotra-upanishad, pp. 260-271; ,, . Nilarudra-upanishad, pp. 272-280; . . Kanthasruti-upanishad, pp. 281-294; _,, . Pinda-upanishad, pp. 295-298 ; . . Atma-upanishad, pp. 299-303; .. . R&amapirvatapantya-upanishad, PP. 304-358; . RAmottaratapaniya-upanishad, PP. 359-384; r . Hanumadukta-Rama-upanishad, PP. 385-393 ; i . Sarvopanishat-sarah, pp. 394-404; ps . Hamsa-upanishad, pp. 404-416 ; zn . Paramahamsa-upanishad, pp. 417-436; 5, . Gab4la-upanishad, pp. 437-455; 3 . Kaivalya-upanishad, pp. 456-464; :
2pp. 60-73. pp. 73-78. pp. 78-82. pp. 83-101. pp. 102-114. pp. 114-118. pp. 118-122. pp. 122-127. pp. 128-184. pp. 184-196. ibidem. Kaivalya-upanishad, pp. 465-479; Dipika by Sankarananda, . Garuda-upanishad, pp. 480 seq.; Dipika by Narayaza, xil UPANISHADS.
3We owe to the same editor in the earlier numbers of the Bibliotheca the following editions: Nvisimhapirvatapani-upanishad, with commentary. Nrisimchottaratapani-upanishad, with commentary. Sha¢kakra-upanishad, with commentary by Narayama. Lastly, Harakandra Vidyabhishama and Visvanatha Sastri have published in the Bibliotheca Indica an edition of the Gopalatapant-upanishad, with commentary by Visvesvara. These editions of the text and commentaries of the Upanishads are no doubt very useful, yet there are many passages where the text is doubtful, still more where the commentaries leave us without any help. Whatever other scholars may think of the difficulty of translating the Upanishads, I can only repeat what I have said before, that I know of few Sanskrit texts presenting more formidable problems to the translator than these philosophical treatises. It may be said that most of them had been translated before. No doubt they have been, and a careful comparison of my own translation with those of my predecessors will show, I believe, that a small advance, at all events, has now been made towards a truer understanding of these ancient texts. But I know full well how much still remains to be done, both in restoring a correct text, and in discovering the original meaning of the Upanishads; and I have again and again had to translate certain passages tentatively only, or following the commentators, though conscious all the time that the meaning which they extract from the text cannot be the right one. As to the text, I explained in my preface to the first volume that I attempted no more than to restore the text, such as it must have existed at the time when Sankara wrote his commentaries. As Sankara lived during the ninth century A.D.', and as we possess no MSS. of so early a date, all reasonable demands of textual criticism would thereby seem to be satisfied. Yet, this is not quite so. We may draw such a line, and for the present keep within
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.
1* They have been published by Dr. Roer in the Bibliotheca Indica. ? Dr. Weber’s statement that Sankara wrote a commentary on the Kaushitakiupanishad has been corrected by Deussen, loc. cit. P- 39. 3 See Deussen, loc. cit. P- 39. * A long list of works ascribed to Sankara may be seen in Regnaud, Philosophie de I’Inde, p. 34, chiefly taken from Fitzedward Hall’s Index of Indian Philosophical Systems. * See Tarkaratna’s Vigiapana, p. 3, 1. a INTRODUCTION. Xi I subjoin a list of thirty of the smaller Upanishads, published by Professor Ramamaya Tarkaratna in the Bibliotheca Indica, with the commentaries of Narayamabhaf?fa. . Sira-upanishad, pp. 1-10; Dipika by Narayaza,pp. 42-60. . Garbha-upanishad, pp. 11-15; . NAadavindu-upanishad, pp. 15-17; . Brahmavindu-upanishad, pp. 18-20; . Dhydnavindu-upanishad, pp. 26-28 ; . Tegovindu-upanishad, pp. 29-30; a . Yogasikha-upanishad, pp. 31-32; . Yogatattva-upanishad, pp. 33-34; " . Sanny4sa-upanishad, pp. 35-39; - . Aruneya-upanishad, pp. 39-41; + . Brahmavidy4-upanishad, pp. 197-203; ,, . Kshurikd-upanishad, pp. 203-218; rs . Kdlika-upanishad, pp. 219-228; : Amritavindu-upanishad, pp. 21-25; . Atharvasikha-upanishad, pp. 229-238; ,, . Brahma-upanishad, pp. 239-259; A . PramAgnihotra-upanishad, pp. 260-271; ,, . Nilarudra-upanishad, pp. 272-280; . . Kanthasruti-upanishad, pp. 281-294; _,, . Pinda-upanishad, pp. 295-298 ; . . Atma-upanishad, pp. 299-303; .. . R&amapirvatapantya-upanishad, PP. 304-358; . RAmottaratapaniya-upanishad, PP. 359-384; r . Hanumadukta-Rama-upanishad, PP. 385-393 ; i . Sarvopanishat-sarah, pp. 394-404; ps . Hamsa-upanishad, pp. 404-416 ; zn . Paramahamsa-upanishad, pp. 417-436; 5, . Gab4la-upanishad, pp. 437-455; 3 . Kaivalya-upanishad, pp. 456-464; :
2pp. 60-73. pp. 73-78. pp. 78-82. pp. 83-101. pp. 102-114. pp. 114-118. pp. 118-122. pp. 122-127. pp. 128-184. pp. 184-196. ibidem. Kaivalya-upanishad, pp. 465-479; Dipika by Sankarananda, . Garuda-upanishad, pp. 480 seq.; Dipika by Narayaza, xil UPANISHADS.
3We owe to the same editor in the earlier numbers of the Bibliotheca the following editions: Nvisimhapirvatapani-upanishad, with commentary. Nrisimchottaratapani-upanishad, with commentary. Sha¢kakra-upanishad, with commentary by Narayama. Lastly, Harakandra Vidyabhishama and Visvanatha Sastri have published in the Bibliotheca Indica an edition of the Gopalatapant-upanishad, with commentary by Visvesvara. These editions of the text and commentaries of the Upanishads are no doubt very useful, yet there are many passages where the text is doubtful, still more where the commentaries leave us without any help. Whatever other scholars may think of the difficulty of translating the Upanishads, I can only repeat what I have said before, that I know of few Sanskrit texts presenting more formidable problems to the translator than these philosophical treatises. It may be said that most of them had been translated before. No doubt they have been, and a careful comparison of my own translation with those of my predecessors will show, I believe, that a small advance, at all events, has now been made towards a truer understanding of these ancient texts. But I know full well how much still remains to be done, both in restoring a correct text, and in discovering the original meaning of the Upanishads; and I have again and again had to translate certain passages tentatively only, or following the commentators, though conscious all the time that the meaning which they extract from the text cannot be the right one. As to the text, I explained in my preface to the first volume that I attempted no more than to restore the text, such as it must have existed at the time when Sankara wrote his commentaries. As Sankara lived during the ninth century A.D.', and as we possess no MSS. of so early a date, all reasonable demands of textual criticism would thereby seem to be satisfied. Yet, this is not quite so. We may draw such a line, and for the present keep within
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.