Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1wealth. He had a son, called Nakiketas. While he was still a boy, faith entered into him at the time when the cows that were to be given (by his father) as presents to the priests, were brought in. He said: ‘ Father, to whom wilt thou give me?’ He said so a second and third time. The father turned round and said to him: ‘To Death, I give thee.’ Then a voice said to the young Gautama, as he stood up: ‘ He (thy father) said, Go away to the house of Death, I give thee to Death.’ Go therefore to Death when he is not at home, and dwell in his house for three nights without eating. If he should ask thee, ‘Boy, how many nights hast thou been here?’ say, ‘Three.’ When he asks thee, ‘What didst thou eat the first night?’ say, ‘Thy offspring. ‘What didst thou eat the second night?’ say, ‘Thy cattle.’ ‘What didst thou eat the third night?’ say, ‘Thy good works.’ He went to Death, while he was away from home, and he dwelt in his house for three nights without eating. When Death returned, he asked: ‘Boy, how many nights hast thou been here?’ He answered: ‘Three.’ ‘What didst thou eat the first night?’ ‘Thy offspring.’ ‘ What didst thou eat the second night?’ ‘Thy cattle.’ ‘What didst thou eat the third night?’ ‘ Thy good works.’ Then he said: ‘My respect to thee, O venerable sir! Choose a boon.’ ‘May I return living to my father,’ he said. ‘ Choose a second boon.’ ‘Tell me how my good works may never perish.’ Then he explained to him this Nadiketa fire (sacrifice), and hence his good works do not perish. ‘Choose a third boon.’ “Tell me the conquest of death again.’ Then he explained to him this (chief) Nafiketa fire (sacrifice), and hence he conquered death again}, This story, which in the Brahmava is told in order to explain the name of a certain sacrificial] ceremony called
2INTRODUCTION. XXiil Nakiketa, was used as a peg on which to hang the doctrines ofthe Upanishad. In its original form it may have constituted one Adhyaya only, and the very fact of its division into two Adhyayas may show that the compilers of the Upanishad were still aware of its gradual origin. We have no means, however, of determining its original form, nor should we even be justified in maintaining that the first Adhydya ever existed by itself, and that the second was added at a much later time. Whatever its component elements may have been before it was an Upanishad, when it was an Upanishad it consisted of six Vallis, neither more nor less. The name of valli, lit. creeper, as a subdivision of a Vedic work, is important. It occurs again in the Taittiriya Upanishads. Professor Weber thinks that valli, creeper, in the sense of chapter, is based on a modern metaphor, and was primarily intended for a creeper, attached to the sakhas or branches of the Veda! More likely, however, it was used in the same sense as parvan, a joint, a shoot, a branch, i.e. a division. Various attempts have been made to distinguish the more modern from the more ancient portions of our Upanishad *. No doubt there are peculiarities of metre, grammar, language, and thought which indicate the more primitive or the more modern character of certain verses. There are repetitions which offend us, and there are several passages which are clearly taken over from other Upanishads, where they seem to have had their original place. Thirty-five years ago, when I first worked at this Upanishad, I saw no difficulty in re-establishing what I thought the original text of the Upanishad must have been. I now feel that we know so little of the time and the circumstances when these half-prose and half-metrical Upanishads were first put together, that I should hesitate
3ee 2 ee a ee oe 1 History of Indian Literature, p. 93, note; Pp. 157- 2 Though it would be unfair to hold Professor Weber responsible for his remarks on this and other questions connected with the Upanishads published many years ago (Indische Studien, 1853, p. 197), and though I have hardly ever thought it necessary to criticise them, some of his remarks are not without their value even now. XXIV UPANISHADS.
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.
1wealth. He had a son, called Nakiketas. While he was still a boy, faith entered into him at the time when the cows that were to be given (by his father) as presents to the priests, were brought in. He said: ‘ Father, to whom wilt thou give me?’ He said so a second and third time. The father turned round and said to him: ‘To Death, I give thee.’ Then a voice said to the young Gautama, as he stood up: ‘ He (thy father) said, Go away to the house of Death, I give thee to Death.’ Go therefore to Death when he is not at home, and dwell in his house for three nights without eating. If he should ask thee, ‘Boy, how many nights hast thou been here?’ say, ‘Three.’ When he asks thee, ‘What didst thou eat the first night?’ say, ‘Thy offspring. ‘What didst thou eat the second night?’ say, ‘Thy cattle.’ ‘What didst thou eat the third night?’ say, ‘Thy good works.’ He went to Death, while he was away from home, and he dwelt in his house for three nights without eating. When Death returned, he asked: ‘Boy, how many nights hast thou been here?’ He answered: ‘Three.’ ‘What didst thou eat the first night?’ ‘Thy offspring.’ ‘ What didst thou eat the second night?’ ‘Thy cattle.’ ‘What didst thou eat the third night?’ ‘ Thy good works.’ Then he said: ‘My respect to thee, O venerable sir! Choose a boon.’ ‘May I return living to my father,’ he said. ‘ Choose a second boon.’ ‘Tell me how my good works may never perish.’ Then he explained to him this Nadiketa fire (sacrifice), and hence his good works do not perish. ‘Choose a third boon.’ “Tell me the conquest of death again.’ Then he explained to him this (chief) Nafiketa fire (sacrifice), and hence he conquered death again}, This story, which in the Brahmava is told in order to explain the name of a certain sacrificial] ceremony called
2INTRODUCTION. XXiil Nakiketa, was used as a peg on which to hang the doctrines ofthe Upanishad. In its original form it may have constituted one Adhyaya only, and the very fact of its division into two Adhyayas may show that the compilers of the Upanishad were still aware of its gradual origin. We have no means, however, of determining its original form, nor should we even be justified in maintaining that the first Adhydya ever existed by itself, and that the second was added at a much later time. Whatever its component elements may have been before it was an Upanishad, when it was an Upanishad it consisted of six Vallis, neither more nor less. The name of valli, lit. creeper, as a subdivision of a Vedic work, is important. It occurs again in the Taittiriya Upanishads. Professor Weber thinks that valli, creeper, in the sense of chapter, is based on a modern metaphor, and was primarily intended for a creeper, attached to the sakhas or branches of the Veda! More likely, however, it was used in the same sense as parvan, a joint, a shoot, a branch, i.e. a division. Various attempts have been made to distinguish the more modern from the more ancient portions of our Upanishad *. No doubt there are peculiarities of metre, grammar, language, and thought which indicate the more primitive or the more modern character of certain verses. There are repetitions which offend us, and there are several passages which are clearly taken over from other Upanishads, where they seem to have had their original place. Thirty-five years ago, when I first worked at this Upanishad, I saw no difficulty in re-establishing what I thought the original text of the Upanishad must have been. I now feel that we know so little of the time and the circumstances when these half-prose and half-metrical Upanishads were first put together, that I should hesitate
3ee 2 ee a ee oe 1 History of Indian Literature, p. 93, note; Pp. 157- 2 Though it would be unfair to hold Professor Weber responsible for his remarks on this and other questions connected with the Upanishads published many years ago (Indische Studien, 1853, p. 197), and though I have hardly ever thought it necessary to criticise them, some of his remarks are not without their value even now. XXIV UPANISHADS.
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.