Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1before expunging even the most modern-sounding lines from the original context of these Vedantic essays’. The mention of Dhatv2, creator, for instance (Ka¢h. Up. II, 20), is certainly startling, and seems to have given rise to a very early conjectural emendation. But dhatzz and vidhatvz occur in the hymns of the Rig-veda (X, 82, 2), and in the Upanishads (Maitr. Up. VI, 8); and Dhatzz, as almost a personal deity, is invoked with Pragapati in Rig-veda X, 184, 1. Deva, in the sense of God (Ka#d. Up. II, 12), is equally strange, but occurs in other Upanishads also (Maitr. Up. VI, 23; Svetasv. Up. I, 3). Much might be said about setu, bridge (Kath. Up. III, 2; Mund. Up. II, 2, 5), Adarsa, mirror (Kak. Up. VI, 5),as being characteristic of a later age. But setu is not a bridge, in our sense of the word, but rather a wall, a bank, a barrier, and occurs frequently in other Upanishads (Maitr. Up. VII, 7 ; KAand. Up. VIII, 4; Brzh. Up. IV, 4, 22, &c.), while Adarsas, or mirrors, are mentioned in the Brzhadadramyaka and the Srauta-sitras. Till we know something more about the date of the first and the last composition or compilation of the Upanishads, how are we to tell what subjects and what ideas the first author or the last collector was familiar with ? To attempt the impossible may seem courageous, but it is hardly scholarlike. With regard to faulty or irregular readings, we can never know whether they are due to the original composers, the compilers, the repeaters, or lastly the writers of the Upanishads. It is easy to say that adresya (Mund. Up. I, 1, 6) ought to be advzsya ; but who would venture to correct that form’? Whenever that verse is quoted, it is quoted with adresya, not adrzsya. The commentators themselves tell us sometimes that certain forms are either Vedic or due to carelessness (pramadapatha) ; but that very fact shows that such a form, for instance, as samiyata (Khand. Up. I, 12, 3) rests on an old authority. No doubt, if we have the original text of an author, and
2INTRODUCTION, XXV Pe ee or copyists or printers, we have a right to remove thosc later alterations, whether they be improvements or corruptions. But where, as in our case, we can never hope to gain access to original documents, and where we can only hope, by pointing out what is clearly more modern than the rest or, it may be, faulty, to gain an approximate conception of what the original composer may have had in his mind, before handing his composition over to the safe keeping of oral tradition, it is almost a duty to discourage, as much as lies in our power, the work of reconstructing an old text by so-called conjectural emendations or critical omissions. I have little doubt, for instance, that the three verses 16-18 in the first Valli of the Kas#a-upanishad are later additions, but I should not therefore venture to remove them. Death had granted three boons to Nafiketas, and no more. In a later portion, however, of the Upanishad (II, 3), the expression srznka vittamayi occurs, which I have translated by ‘the road which leads to wealth.’ As it is said that Nafiketas did not choose that svznka, some reader must have supposed that a svznka was offered him by Death. Srznka, however, meant commonly a string or necklace, and hence arose the idea that Death must have offered a necklace as an additional giit to Nakiketas. Besides this, there was another honour done to Nafiketas by Mrityu, namely, his allowing the sacrifice which he had taught him, to be called by his name. This also, it was supposed, ought to have been distinctly mentioned before, and hence the insertion of the three verses 16-18. They are clumsily put in, for after punar evaha, ‘he said again, verse 16 ought not to have commenced by tam abravit, ‘he said to him.’ They contain nothing new, for the fact that the sacrifice is to be called after Nakiketas was sufficiently indicated by verse 19, ‘ This, O Nakfiketas, is thy fire which leads to heaven, which thou hast chosen as thy second boon.’ But so anxious was the interpolator to impress upon his hearers the fact that the sacrifice should in future go by that name, that, in spite of the metre, he inserted tavaiva, ‘of thee alone,’ in
3Tus is an Upanishad of the Atharva-veda. It is a Mantra-upanishad, i.e. it has the form of a Mantra. But, as the commentators observe, though it is written in verse, it is not, like other Mantras, to be used for sacrificial purposes. Its only object is to teach the highest knowledge, the knowledge of Brahman, which cannot be obtained either by sacrifices or by worship (upasana), but by such teaching only as is imparted in the Upanishad. A man may a hundred times restrain his breath, &c., but without the Upanishad his ignorance does not cease. Nor is it right to continue for ever in the performance of sacrificial and other good works, if one wishes to obtain the highest knowledge of Brahman. The Sannydsin alone, who has given up everything, is qualified to know and to become Brahman. And though it might seem from Vedic legends that Grzhasthas also who continued to live with their families, performing all the duties required of them by law, had been in possession of the highest knowledge, this, we are told, is a mistake. Works and knowledge can be as little together as darkness and light. This Upanishad too has been often translated since it first appeared in the Persian translation of Dara Shukoh. My own copy of the text and Sankara’s commentary from the MS. in the Chambers Collection was made in October 1844. Both are now best accessible in the Bibliotheca Indica, where Dr. Roer has published the text, the commentary by Sankara, a gloss by Anandag#iana, and an English translation with notes. The title of the Upanishad, Muzdaka, has not yet been explained. The Upanishad is called Muzdaka-upanishad, and its three chapters are each called Muzdakam. Native commentators explain it as the shaving Upanishad, that is, as the Upanishad which cuts off the errors of the mind, like a razor. Another Upanishad also is called Kshurika, the razor, a name which is explained in the text itself as
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.
1before expunging even the most modern-sounding lines from the original context of these Vedantic essays’. The mention of Dhatv2, creator, for instance (Ka¢h. Up. II, 20), is certainly startling, and seems to have given rise to a very early conjectural emendation. But dhatzz and vidhatvz occur in the hymns of the Rig-veda (X, 82, 2), and in the Upanishads (Maitr. Up. VI, 8); and Dhatzz, as almost a personal deity, is invoked with Pragapati in Rig-veda X, 184, 1. Deva, in the sense of God (Ka#d. Up. II, 12), is equally strange, but occurs in other Upanishads also (Maitr. Up. VI, 23; Svetasv. Up. I, 3). Much might be said about setu, bridge (Kath. Up. III, 2; Mund. Up. II, 2, 5), Adarsa, mirror (Kak. Up. VI, 5),as being characteristic of a later age. But setu is not a bridge, in our sense of the word, but rather a wall, a bank, a barrier, and occurs frequently in other Upanishads (Maitr. Up. VII, 7 ; KAand. Up. VIII, 4; Brzh. Up. IV, 4, 22, &c.), while Adarsas, or mirrors, are mentioned in the Brzhadadramyaka and the Srauta-sitras. Till we know something more about the date of the first and the last composition or compilation of the Upanishads, how are we to tell what subjects and what ideas the first author or the last collector was familiar with ? To attempt the impossible may seem courageous, but it is hardly scholarlike. With regard to faulty or irregular readings, we can never know whether they are due to the original composers, the compilers, the repeaters, or lastly the writers of the Upanishads. It is easy to say that adresya (Mund. Up. I, 1, 6) ought to be advzsya ; but who would venture to correct that form’? Whenever that verse is quoted, it is quoted with adresya, not adrzsya. The commentators themselves tell us sometimes that certain forms are either Vedic or due to carelessness (pramadapatha) ; but that very fact shows that such a form, for instance, as samiyata (Khand. Up. I, 12, 3) rests on an old authority. No doubt, if we have the original text of an author, and
2INTRODUCTION, XXV Pe ee or copyists or printers, we have a right to remove thosc later alterations, whether they be improvements or corruptions. But where, as in our case, we can never hope to gain access to original documents, and where we can only hope, by pointing out what is clearly more modern than the rest or, it may be, faulty, to gain an approximate conception of what the original composer may have had in his mind, before handing his composition over to the safe keeping of oral tradition, it is almost a duty to discourage, as much as lies in our power, the work of reconstructing an old text by so-called conjectural emendations or critical omissions. I have little doubt, for instance, that the three verses 16-18 in the first Valli of the Kas#a-upanishad are later additions, but I should not therefore venture to remove them. Death had granted three boons to Nafiketas, and no more. In a later portion, however, of the Upanishad (II, 3), the expression srznka vittamayi occurs, which I have translated by ‘the road which leads to wealth.’ As it is said that Nafiketas did not choose that svznka, some reader must have supposed that a svznka was offered him by Death. Srznka, however, meant commonly a string or necklace, and hence arose the idea that Death must have offered a necklace as an additional giit to Nakiketas. Besides this, there was another honour done to Nafiketas by Mrityu, namely, his allowing the sacrifice which he had taught him, to be called by his name. This also, it was supposed, ought to have been distinctly mentioned before, and hence the insertion of the three verses 16-18. They are clumsily put in, for after punar evaha, ‘he said again, verse 16 ought not to have commenced by tam abravit, ‘he said to him.’ They contain nothing new, for the fact that the sacrifice is to be called after Nakiketas was sufficiently indicated by verse 19, ‘ This, O Nakfiketas, is thy fire which leads to heaven, which thou hast chosen as thy second boon.’ But so anxious was the interpolator to impress upon his hearers the fact that the sacrifice should in future go by that name, that, in spite of the metre, he inserted tavaiva, ‘of thee alone,’ in
3Tus is an Upanishad of the Atharva-veda. It is a Mantra-upanishad, i.e. it has the form of a Mantra. But, as the commentators observe, though it is written in verse, it is not, like other Mantras, to be used for sacrificial purposes. Its only object is to teach the highest knowledge, the knowledge of Brahman, which cannot be obtained either by sacrifices or by worship (upasana), but by such teaching only as is imparted in the Upanishad. A man may a hundred times restrain his breath, &c., but without the Upanishad his ignorance does not cease. Nor is it right to continue for ever in the performance of sacrificial and other good works, if one wishes to obtain the highest knowledge of Brahman. The Sannydsin alone, who has given up everything, is qualified to know and to become Brahman. And though it might seem from Vedic legends that Grzhasthas also who continued to live with their families, performing all the duties required of them by law, had been in possession of the highest knowledge, this, we are told, is a mistake. Works and knowledge can be as little together as darkness and light. This Upanishad too has been often translated since it first appeared in the Persian translation of Dara Shukoh. My own copy of the text and Sankara’s commentary from the MS. in the Chambers Collection was made in October 1844. Both are now best accessible in the Bibliotheca Indica, where Dr. Roer has published the text, the commentary by Sankara, a gloss by Anandag#iana, and an English translation with notes. The title of the Upanishad, Muzdaka, has not yet been explained. The Upanishad is called Muzdaka-upanishad, and its three chapters are each called Muzdakam. Native commentators explain it as the shaving Upanishad, that is, as the Upanishad which cuts off the errors of the mind, like a razor. Another Upanishad also is called Kshurika, the razor, a name which is explained in the text itself as
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.