Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 1 — The Upanishads, Part I (Muller, page scans)

I. Amo namasy ama hi te sarvam idam sa hi syeshthah

IT. amo ’sy Amam hi te mayi sa hi
III. amasusy Amamhi te mahi sa hi
I. sreshtho ragadhipatiz sa ma gyaishthyam srai-
‘Be ragesano ‘dhipatiZ sa ma ragesano
IIT. ragesano
I. shthyam ragyam Adhipatyam gamayatv aham evedam
II. *dhipati — karotv iti.
TB BE ‘dhipatizz — karotv iti.
I. sarvam asaniti.
II.
III.

The text in the XZandogya-upanishad yields a certain sense, viz.‘ Thou art Ama by name, for all this together exists in thee. He is the oldest and best, the king, the sovereign. May he make me the oldest, the best, the king, the sovereign. May I be all this.’ This, according to the commentator, is addressed to Prava, and Ama, though a purely artificial word, is used in the sense of Prawa, or breath, in another passage also, viz. Brihad-dravyaka-up. I, 3, 22. If therefore we accept this meaning of Ama, the rest is easy and intelligible.

But if we proceed to the Brzhad-arazyaka, in the Madhyan- dina-sakha, we find the commentator proposing the fol- lowing interpretation : ‘O Mantha, thou art a full knower, complete knowledge of me belongs to thee.’ This meaning is obtained by deriving 4maz from 4+ man, in the sense of knower, and then taking 4mam, as a neuter, in the sense of knowledge, derivations which are simply impossible.

Lastly, if we come to the text of the Kazva-sakha, the
grammatical interpretation becomes bolder still. Sankara
does not explain the passage at all, which is strange, but
Anandagiri interprets Amamsi tvam by ‘Thou knowest

INTRODUCTION. Ixxvii

(all) and 4mamhi te mahi, by ‘we know thy great (shape), which are again impossible forms.

But although there can be little doubt here that the reading of the X#andogya-upanishad gives us the original text, or a text ‘nearest to the original, no sound critic would venture to correct the readings of the Brzhad- aramyaka. They are corruptions, but even as corrup- tions they possess authority, at all events up to a certain point, and it is the fixing of those certain points or chrono- logical limits, which alone can impart a scientific character to our criticism of ancient texts.

In the Kaushitaki-brahmavza-upanishad Professor Cowell has pointed out a passage to me, where we must go beyond the text as it stood when commented on by the Sankara- nanda. In the beginning of the fourth adhyaya all MSS. of the text read savasan, and this is the reading which the commentator seems anxious to explain, though not very successfully. I thought that possibly the commentator might have had before him the reading sa vasan, or so ’va- san, but both would be very unusual. Professor Cowell in his Various Readings, p. xii, conjectured saszvasan, which would be liable to the same objection. He now, however, informs me that, as B. has samtvan, and C. satvan, he believes the original text to have been Satvan-Matsyeshu. This seems to me quite convincing, and is borne out by the reading of the Berlin MS., so far as it can be made out from Professor Weber’s essay on the Upanishads, Indische Studien I, p. 419. I see that Boehtlingk and Roth in their Sanskrit Dictionary, s.v. satvat, suggest the same emendation.

The more we study the nature of Sanskrit MSS., the more, I believe, we shall feel convinced that their proper arrangement is one by locality rather than by time. I have frequently dwelt on this subject in the introductions to the successive volumes of my edition of the Rig-veda and its commentary by SAyaw4karya, and my convictions on this point have become stronger ever since. A MS., however modern, from the south of India or from the north, is more important as a check on the textus receptus of

Ixxviili UPANISHADS.

any Sanskrit work, as prevalent in Bengal or Bombay, than ever so many MSS., even if of greater antiquity, from the same locality. When therefore I was informed by my friend Dr. Bihler that he had discovered in Kashmir a MS. of the Aitareya-upanishad, I certainly ex- pected some real help from such a treasure. The MS. is described by its discoverer in the last number of the Journal of the Bombay Asiatic Society, p. 341, and has since been sent to me by the Indian Government. It is written on birch bark (bhirga), and in the alphabet commonly called Sdrada. The leaves are very much injured on the margin, and it is almost impossible to handle them without some injury. In many places the bark has shrunk, probably on being moistened, and the letters have become illegible. Apart from these drawbacks, there remain the difficulties inherent in the Sdrada alphabet which, owing to its nu- merous combinations, is extremely difficult to read, and very trying to eyes which are growing weak. However, I collated the Upanishad from the Aitareya-Arazyaka, which turned out to be the last portion only, viz. the Samhita-upanishad (Ait. Ar. III, 1-2), or, as it is called here, Samhitarazya, and I am sorry to say my expectations have been disappointed. The MS. shows certain graphic peculiarities which Dr. Biihler has pointed out. It is particu- larly careful in the use of the sibilants, replacing the Visarga by sibilants, writing s+s and s+-s instead of k+s and +s; distinguishing also the Gihvamiliya and Upadhma- niya. If therefore the MS. writes antastha, we may be sure that it really meant to write so, and not anta/stha, or, as it would have written, antasstha. It shows equal care in the use of the nasals, and generally carries on the sandhi between different paragraphs. Here and there I met with better readings than those given in Rajendralal Mitra’s edition, but in most cases the commentary would have been sufficient to restore the right reading. A few various read- ings, which seemed to deserve being mentioned, will be found

* Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1877. Extra Number, containing the Detailed Report of a Tour in search of Sanskrit MSS., made in Kasmir, Rajputana, and Central India, by G. Biihler.

INTRODUCTION. Ixxix

in the notes. The MS., though carefully written, is not free from the ordinary blunders. At first one feels inclined to attribute some importance to every peculiarity of a new MS., but very soon one finds out that what seems peculiar, is in reality carelessness. Thus Ait. Ar. III, 1, 5, 2, the Kashmir MS. has piirvam aksharasz ripam, instead of what alone can be right, pdirvaripam. Instead of pragaya pasubhiZ it writes repeatedly pragaya pasubhiz, which is impossible. In III, 2, 2, it leaves out again and again manomaya between #Aandomaya and vanmaya; but that this is a mere accident we learn later on, where in the same sentence manomayo is found in its right place. Such cases reduce this MS. to its proper level, and make us look with suspicion on any accidental variations, such as I have noticed in my translation.

The additional paragraph, noticed by Dr. Biihler, is very indistinct, and contains, so far as I am able to find out, santi verses only.

I have no doubt that the discovery of new MSS. of the Upanishads and their commentaries will throw new light on the very numerous difficulties with which a translator of the Upanishads, particularly in attempting a complete and faithful translation, has at present to grapple. Some of the difficulties, which existed thirty years ago, have been removed since by the general progress of Vedic scholar- ship, and by the editions of texts and commentaries and translations of Upanishads, many of which were known at that time in manuscript only. But I fully agree with M. Regnaud as to the difficultés considérables que les meilleures traductions laissent subsister, and which can be solved only by a continued study of the Upanishads, the Arazyakas, the Brahmamas, and the Vedanta-sitras.

MEANING OF THE WORD UPANISHAD.

How Upanishad became the recognised name of the
philosophical treatises contained in the Veda is difficult to
explain. Most European scholars are agreed in deriving

Ixxx UPANISHADS.

upa-ni-shad from the root sad, to sit down, preceded by the two prepositions ni, down, and upa, near, so that it would express the idea of session, or assembly of pupils sitting down near their teacher to listen to his instruction. In the Trikaxdasesha, upanishad is explained by samipasa- dana, sitting down near a person}.

Such a word, however, would have been applicable, it would seem, to any other portion of the Veda as well as to. the chapters called Upanishad, and it has never been ex- plained how its meaning came thus to be restricted. It is still more strange that upanishad, in the sense of session or assembly, has never, so far as I am aware, been met with. Whenever the word occurs, it has the meaning of doctrine, secret doctrine, or is simply used as the title of the philo- sophic treatises which constitute the gfidnakazda, the know- ledge portion, as opposed to the karmakazda, the work or ceremonial portion, of the Veda.

Native philosophers seem never to have thought of deriv- ing upanishad from sad, to sit down. They derive it either from the root sad, in the sense of destruction, supposing these ancient treatises to.have received their name because they were intended to destroy passion and ignorance by means of divine revelation?, or from the root sad, in the sense of approaching, because a knowledge of Brahman comes near to us by means of the Upanishads, or because we approach Brahman by their help. Another explanation proposed by Sankara in his commentary on the Taittiriya- upanishad IT, 9, is that the highest bliss is contained in the Upanishad (param sreyo ’sy4m nishannam).

These explanations seem so wilfully perverse that it is
difficult to understand the unanimity of native scholars.
We ought to take into account, however, that very
general tendency among _half-educated people, to ac-
quiesce in any etymology which accounts. for the most
prevalent meaning of a word. The Aranyakas abound in

? Panini I, 4, 79, has upanishatkritya.

* M. M., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 318; Colebrooke, Essays, I, 92; Regnaud, Matériaux, Pista

INTRODUCTION. . Ixxxi

such etymologies, which probably were never intended as
real etymologies, in our sense of the word, but simply as
plays on words, helping to account somehow for their
meaning. The Upanishads, no doubt, were meant to
destroy ignorance and passion, and nothing seemed more
natural therefore than that their etymological meaning
should be that of destroyers '.

The history and the genius of the Sanskrit language leave little doubt that upanishad meant originally session, particularly a session consisting of pupils, assembled at a respectful distance round their teacher.

With upa alone, sad occurs as early as the hymns of the Rig-veda, in the sense of approaching respectfully ?:—

Rig-veda IX, 11, 6. Namasa it upa sidata, ‘approach him with praise.’ See also Rig-veda X, 73, 11; I, 65, 1.

In the A/andogya-upanishad VI, 13, 1, a teacher says
to his pupil, atha m4 pratar upasidathaZ, ‘come to me (for
advice) to-morrow morning.’

In the same Upanishad VII, 8, 1, a distinction is made
between those who serve their teachers (parifarita), and
those who are admitted to their more intimate society
(upasatta, comm. samipaga4, antaranga, priyah).

Again, in the A/andogya-upanishad VII, 1, we read of
a pupil approaching his teacher (updsasdda or upasasdda),
and of the teacher telling him tc approach with what he
knows, i.e. to tell him first what he has learnt already
(yad vettha tena mopasida °).

In the Satras (Gobhiliya Grzhya-sitra II, 10, 38) upasad
is the recognised term for the position assumed by a pupil
with his hands folded and his eyes looking up to the
teacher who is to instruct him.

It should be stated, however, that no passage has yet been met with in which upa-ni-sad is used in the sense of pupils approaching and listening to their teacher. In the

‘ The distinction between possible and real etymologies is as modern as that between legend and history.

4 See M. M.’s History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 318.

3 See also AAand, Up. V1, 7, 2.

Ixxxli UPANISHADS.

only passage in which upanishasdda occurs (Ait. Ar. II, 2, 1), it is used of Indra sitting down by the side of Visv4- mitra, and it is curious to observe that both MSS. and commentaries give here upanishasasdda, an entirely irre- gular form. ?

We likewise find upa-vis used in the sense of sitting
down to a discussion (Kind. Up. I,8, 2), but I have never
found upa+ni+vis as applied to a pupil listening to his
teacher.

The two prepositions upa and ni occur, however, with pat, to fly, in the sense of flying down and settling near a person, KAand. Up. IV, 7,2; IV, 8,2. And the same pre- positions joined to the verb sri, impart to it the meaning of sitting down beneath a person, so as to show him respect : Bris. Ar. 1; 4, 11, ‘Although a king is exalted, he sits down at the end of the sacrifice below the Brahman, brahmaivantata upanisrayati.

Sad, with upa and ni, occurs in upanishddin only, and
has there the meaning of subject, e.g. Satap. Brahm. IX, 4,
3, 3, kshatraya tad visam adhastad upanishddinim karoti,
‘he thus makes the Vis (citizen) below, subject to the
Kshatriya.’