Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1yu Sahya- yani receives answers to his questions from a Gandharva possessing a maiden; Satyakama learns what Brahman is from the bull of the herd he is tending, from Agni and from a flamingo ; and Upako^ala is taught by the sacred fires in his teacher's house. All this is of course legend, not history; but the fact that the philosophic and theological doctrines of the Upanishads are clothed in this legendary garb certainly does not strengthen the ex- pectation of finding in them a rigidly systematic doctrine. And a closer investigation of the contents of the Upani- shads amply confirms this preliminary impression. If we avail ourselves, for instance, of M. Paul Regnaud's Materiaux pour servir a l'Histoire de la Philosophic de l'lnde, in which the philosophical lucubrations of the different Upanishads are arranged systematically according to topics, we can see with ease how, together with a certain uniformity of general leading conceptions, there runs throughout divergence in details, and very often not unimportant details. A look, for instance, at the collection of passages relative to the origination of the world from the primitive being, suffices to show that the task of demonstrating that whatever the Upanishads teach on that point can be made to fit into a homogeneous system is an altogether hopeless one. The accounts there given of the creation belong, beyond all doubt, to different stages of philosophic and theological development or else to different sections of priestly society. None but an Indian commentator would, I suppose, be inclined and sufficiently courageous to attempt the proof that, for in- stance, the legend of the atman purushavidha, the Self in the shape of a person which is as large as man and woman together, and then splits itself into two halves from which cows, horses, asses, goats, &c. are produced in succession (Bri. Up. I, i, 4), can be reconciled with the account given of the creation in the KMndogya. Upanishad, where it is said that in the beginning there existed nothing but the sat, cvl vedAnta-s6tras. i that which is,5 and that feeling a desire of being many it emitted out of itself ether, and then all the other elements in due succession. The former is a primitive cosmogonic myth, which in its details shows striking analogies with the cosmogonic myths of other nations ; the latter account is fairly developed Vedanta (although not Vedanta implying the Maya doctrine).
2other elements in due succession. The former is a primitive cosmogonic myth, which in its details shows striking analogies with the cosmogonic myths of other nations ; the latter account is fairly developed Vedanta (although not Vedanta implying the Maya doctrine). We may admit that both accounts show a certain fundamental similarity in so far as they derive the manifold world from one original being ; but to go beyond this and to maintain, as vSankara does, that the atman purushavidha of the Br/hadara^yaka is the so-called Virct^ of the latter Vedanta — implying thereby that that section consciously aims at describing only the activity of one special form of tjvara, and not simply the whole pro- cess of creation — -is the ingenious shift of an orthodox commentator in difficulties, but nothing more. How all those more or less conflicting texts came to be preserved and handed down to posterity, is not difficult to understand. As mentioned above, each of the great sections of Brahminical priesthood had its own sacred texts, and again in each of those sections there existed more ancient texts which it was impossible to dis- card when deeper and more advanced speculations began in their turn to be embodied in literary compositions, which in the course of time likewise came to be looked upon as sacred. When the creative period had reached its termina- tion, and the task of collecting and arranging was taken in hand, older and newer pieces were combined into wholes, and thus there arose collections of such heterogeneous character as the KMndogya. and Br/hadara^yaka Upani- shads. On later generations, to which the whole body of texts came down as revealed truth, there consequently devolved the inevitable task of establishing systems on which no exception could be taken to any of the texts ; but that the task was, strictly speaking, an impossible one, i. e. one which it was impossible to accomplish fairly and honestly, there really is no reason to deny. For a comprehensive criticism of the methods which the different commentators employ in systematising the contents INTRODUCTION. CV11 of the Upanishads there is no room in this place. In order, however, to illustrate what is meant by the ' impossibility,' above alluded to, of combining the various doctrines of the Upanishads into a whole without doing violence to a certain number of texts, it will be as well to analyse in detail some few at least of 5ankara's interpretations, and to render clear the considerations by which he is guided.
3ing the various doctrines of the Upanishads into a whole without doing violence to a certain number of texts, it will be as well to analyse in detail some few at least of 5ankara's interpretations, and to render clear the considerations by which he is guided. We begin with a case which has already engaged our attention when discussing the meaning of the Sutras, viz. the question concerning the ultimate fate of those who have attained the knowledge of Brahman. As we have seen, vSankara teaches that the soul of him who has risen to an insight into the nature of the higher Brahman does not, at the moment of death, pass out of the body, but is directly merged in Brahman by a process from which all. departing and moving, in fact all considerations of space, are altogether excluded. The soul of him, on the other hand, who has not risen above the knowledge of the lower qualified Brahman departs from the body by means of the artery called sushum^a, and following the so-called devayana, the path of the gods, mounts up to the world of Brahman. A review of the chief Upanishad texts on which 5ankara founds this distinction will show how far it is justified. In a considerable number of passages the Upanishads contrast the fate of two classes of men, viz. of those who perform sacrifices and meritorious works only, and of those who in addition possess a certain kind of knowledge. Men of the former kind ascend after death to the moon, where they live for a certain time, and then return to the earth into new forms of embodiment ; persons of the latter kind proceed on the path of the gods — on which the sun forms one stage — up to the world of Brahman, from which there is no return. The chief passages to that effect are Kh. Up. V, 10 ; Kaush. Up. I, 2 ff. ; Mund. Up. I, 3, 9 ff. ; Bri. Up. VI, 2, 15 ff. ; Pra^na Up. I, 9 ff. — In other passages only the latter of the two paths is referred to, cp.K/z. Up. IV,i5;VIII,6,5;Taitt.Up.I,6; Bri. Up. IV, 4, 8, 9 ;V, 10 ; Maitr.Up.VI, 30, to mention only the more important ones. Now an impartial consideration of those passages shows CVlii VEDANTA-sftTRAS. I think, beyond any doubt, that what is meant there by the knowledge which leads through the sun to the world of Brahman is the highest knowledge of which the devotee is capable, and that the world of Brahman to which his know- ledge enables him to proceed denotes the highest state which he can ever reach, the state of final release, if we choose to call it by that name. — Kh. Up. V, 10 says, c Those who know this (viz.
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.
1yu Sahya- yani receives answers to his questions from a Gandharva possessing a maiden; Satyakama learns what Brahman is from the bull of the herd he is tending, from Agni and from a flamingo ; and Upako^ala is taught by the sacred fires in his teacher's house. All this is of course legend, not history; but the fact that the philosophic and theological doctrines of the Upanishads are clothed in this legendary garb certainly does not strengthen the ex- pectation of finding in them a rigidly systematic doctrine. And a closer investigation of the contents of the Upani- shads amply confirms this preliminary impression. If we avail ourselves, for instance, of M. Paul Regnaud's Materiaux pour servir a l'Histoire de la Philosophic de l'lnde, in which the philosophical lucubrations of the different Upanishads are arranged systematically according to topics, we can see with ease how, together with a certain uniformity of general leading conceptions, there runs throughout divergence in details, and very often not unimportant details. A look, for instance, at the collection of passages relative to the origination of the world from the primitive being, suffices to show that the task of demonstrating that whatever the Upanishads teach on that point can be made to fit into a homogeneous system is an altogether hopeless one. The accounts there given of the creation belong, beyond all doubt, to different stages of philosophic and theological development or else to different sections of priestly society. None but an Indian commentator would, I suppose, be inclined and sufficiently courageous to attempt the proof that, for in- stance, the legend of the atman purushavidha, the Self in the shape of a person which is as large as man and woman together, and then splits itself into two halves from which cows, horses, asses, goats, &c. are produced in succession (Bri. Up. I, i, 4), can be reconciled with the account given of the creation in the KMndogya. Upanishad, where it is said that in the beginning there existed nothing but the sat, cvl vedAnta-s6tras. i that which is,5 and that feeling a desire of being many it emitted out of itself ether, and then all the other elements in due succession. The former is a primitive cosmogonic myth, which in its details shows striking analogies with the cosmogonic myths of other nations ; the latter account is fairly developed Vedanta (although not Vedanta implying the Maya doctrine).
2other elements in due succession. The former is a primitive cosmogonic myth, which in its details shows striking analogies with the cosmogonic myths of other nations ; the latter account is fairly developed Vedanta (although not Vedanta implying the Maya doctrine). We may admit that both accounts show a certain fundamental similarity in so far as they derive the manifold world from one original being ; but to go beyond this and to maintain, as vSankara does, that the atman purushavidha of the Br/hadara^yaka is the so-called Virct^ of the latter Vedanta — implying thereby that that section consciously aims at describing only the activity of one special form of tjvara, and not simply the whole pro- cess of creation — -is the ingenious shift of an orthodox commentator in difficulties, but nothing more. How all those more or less conflicting texts came to be preserved and handed down to posterity, is not difficult to understand. As mentioned above, each of the great sections of Brahminical priesthood had its own sacred texts, and again in each of those sections there existed more ancient texts which it was impossible to dis- card when deeper and more advanced speculations began in their turn to be embodied in literary compositions, which in the course of time likewise came to be looked upon as sacred. When the creative period had reached its termina- tion, and the task of collecting and arranging was taken in hand, older and newer pieces were combined into wholes, and thus there arose collections of such heterogeneous character as the KMndogya. and Br/hadara^yaka Upani- shads. On later generations, to which the whole body of texts came down as revealed truth, there consequently devolved the inevitable task of establishing systems on which no exception could be taken to any of the texts ; but that the task was, strictly speaking, an impossible one, i. e. one which it was impossible to accomplish fairly and honestly, there really is no reason to deny. For a comprehensive criticism of the methods which the different commentators employ in systematising the contents INTRODUCTION. CV11 of the Upanishads there is no room in this place. In order, however, to illustrate what is meant by the ' impossibility,' above alluded to, of combining the various doctrines of the Upanishads into a whole without doing violence to a certain number of texts, it will be as well to analyse in detail some few at least of 5ankara's interpretations, and to render clear the considerations by which he is guided.
3ing the various doctrines of the Upanishads into a whole without doing violence to a certain number of texts, it will be as well to analyse in detail some few at least of 5ankara's interpretations, and to render clear the considerations by which he is guided. We begin with a case which has already engaged our attention when discussing the meaning of the Sutras, viz. the question concerning the ultimate fate of those who have attained the knowledge of Brahman. As we have seen, vSankara teaches that the soul of him who has risen to an insight into the nature of the higher Brahman does not, at the moment of death, pass out of the body, but is directly merged in Brahman by a process from which all. departing and moving, in fact all considerations of space, are altogether excluded. The soul of him, on the other hand, who has not risen above the knowledge of the lower qualified Brahman departs from the body by means of the artery called sushum^a, and following the so-called devayana, the path of the gods, mounts up to the world of Brahman. A review of the chief Upanishad texts on which 5ankara founds this distinction will show how far it is justified. In a considerable number of passages the Upanishads contrast the fate of two classes of men, viz. of those who perform sacrifices and meritorious works only, and of those who in addition possess a certain kind of knowledge. Men of the former kind ascend after death to the moon, where they live for a certain time, and then return to the earth into new forms of embodiment ; persons of the latter kind proceed on the path of the gods — on which the sun forms one stage — up to the world of Brahman, from which there is no return. The chief passages to that effect are Kh. Up. V, 10 ; Kaush. Up. I, 2 ff. ; Mund. Up. I, 3, 9 ff. ; Bri. Up. VI, 2, 15 ff. ; Pra^na Up. I, 9 ff. — In other passages only the latter of the two paths is referred to, cp.K/z. Up. IV,i5;VIII,6,5;Taitt.Up.I,6; Bri. Up. IV, 4, 8, 9 ;V, 10 ; Maitr.Up.VI, 30, to mention only the more important ones. Now an impartial consideration of those passages shows CVlii VEDANTA-sftTRAS. I think, beyond any doubt, that what is meant there by the knowledge which leads through the sun to the world of Brahman is the highest knowledge of which the devotee is capable, and that the world of Brahman to which his know- ledge enables him to proceed denotes the highest state which he can ever reach, the state of final release, if we choose to call it by that name. — Kh. Up. V, 10 says, c Those who know this (viz.
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.