Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Encyclopedia of India–China Cultural Contacts v1.c7.s10.t6: Upanishad

Encyclopedia of India–China Cultural Contacts v1.c7.s10.t6

Language
English

Upanishad

v1.c7.s10.t6.1

The Upanishads are a collection of classic texts that first proposed a host of brilliant philosophical thoughts in ancient India that were later instrumental in the formation of the key philosophical theories of Brahmanism and Hinduism. The creation of the Upanishads spanned an extremely long period of time, with the first few Upanishad texts emerging as early as 9th century BCE, as followed by a myriad of other related texts over the ensuing centuries. The latest among the Upanishad collection did not come out until well after the start of the Common Era. One of the most important books the world has ever known, the Upanishads exerted considerable influence on the development of Indian culture, especially Indian philosophy, with numerous philosophical schools in ancient India able to trace the roots of their theories to the Upanishad texts and many renowned thinkers of contemporary India also profoundly exposed to the far-reaching sway of the canon. The major ideas and theories contained in the Upanishads spread to China along with Buddhism, where they went on to make a notable impact on the Chinese philosophical scene.

v1.c7.s10.t6.2

Major Upanishads and Issues Discussed

v1.c7.s10.t6.3

The Sanskrit term Upanishad translates to “sitting down near”, referring to the student sitting down near the teacher while receiving esoteric knowledge. There are over 200 Upanishads, which collectively reflect some of the very basic theories of Indian philosophy and religion as evolved over a lengthy period of time. Among this voluminous body of texts, only a dozen or so are considered relatively significant or influential:

v1.c7.s10.t6.4

Some of the earliest significant Upanisads include the *Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanishad*, *Chāndogya Upanishad*, *Aitareya Upanishad*, *Taittiriya Upanishad*, *Kaushitaki Upanishad* and *Kena Upanishad*, which were generally believed to be composed between 800 BCE and 500 BCE. Those that emerged still later include the *Katha Upanishad*, *Isha Upanishad*, *Shvetashvatara Upanishad*, *Mundaka Upanishad*, *Prashna Upanishad*, *Mandukya Upanishad*, and *Maitrayaniya Upanishad*, which were believed to be created between 500 BCE and 200 BCE.

v1.c7.s10.t6.5

The *Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanishad* is the oldest and longest of the Upanishads. It elaborates systematically on the central concept of the Brahmanist philosophy: Brahman, including the essence of Brahman, the indescribability of Brahman, the two types of Brahman, and the relationship between Brahman and Atman, while also covering a variety of other topics such as the creation of the world, life after death, ascetic austerities, abstinence and release.

v1.c7.s10.t6.6

The *Chāndogya Upanishad* mainly expounds its

v1.c7.s10.t6.7

Fifty Upanishads, translated by Xu Fancheng (front cover)

v1.c7.s10.t6.8

Brahman-Atman unity theory, its theory on world creation, the relationship between man’s fate and man’s actions in the past life, and man’s duties and obligations.

v1.c7.s10.t6.9

The *Aitareya Upanishad* focusses on such issues as life after death, world creation and primary cause thereof.

v1.c7.s10.t6.10

The *Taittiriya Upanishad* pays special attention to the issue of ethics, and also examines certain issues concerning the understanding of Brahman and relevant practices.

v1.c7.s10.t6.11

The *Kaushitaki Upanishad* explores such issues as the “breath”, the “knower” and the “Known”.

v1.c7.s10.t6.12

The *Kena Upanishad* reveals the real power behind the workings of the universe both external and internal, and describes the amazing qualities of Brahman.

v1.c7.s10.t6.13

The *Katha Upanishad* focuses its critical lens on the essentiality of Brahman.

v1.c7.s10.t6.14

The *Isha Upanishad* is the shortest of the Upanishads, and discusses, among other things, man’s understanding, actions, wisdom and essence of Atman.

v1.c7.s10.t6.15

The *Shvetashvatara Upanishad* examines some samkhya and yoga thoughts, and also presents its theories on the “Lord”;

v1.c7.s10.t6.16

The *Mundaka Upanishad* attaches great importance to ascetic austerities, maintaining that ascetic austerities can dispel ignorance; it also divides the knowledge that leads to self realisation into two types: Para Vidya and Apara Vidya.

v1.c7.s10.t6.17

The *Prashna Upanishad* holds the Highest Self (Brahman) to be the basis of everything, by understanding which one can attain a sublime state of immortality.

v1.c7.s10.t6.18

Despite its relatively short length, the *Mandukya Upanishad* nonetheless garnered a great deal of attention by proposing the famous Four States of Consciousness, namely, waking, dreaming, deep sleep and fourth, known as turiya, which is the highest.

v1.c7.s10.t6.19

The *Maitrayaniya Upanishad* discusses the two forms of Atman and the means to achieve Brahman-Atman unity.

v1.c7.s10.t6.20

It’s fair to say that the abovementioned Upanishads shed revealing light on some of the most representative thoughts of the leading philosophers and thinkers in ancient India.

v1.c7.s10.t6.21

Basic Theories

v1.c7.s10.t6.22

Despite the expansive scope of the Upanishads, encompassing the philosophical and religious viewpoints and ideas of a galaxy of thinkers in ancient India over a span of several hundred years, it is not difficult for us to identify the few key points of theoretical significance that commanded the most attention of those thinkers. The basic theories of the Upanishads are primarily comprised of three ones: the Brahman-Atman unity (Brahmatmaikyam) theory; the reincarnation and release (Moksha) theory; and the basic elements theory.

v1.c7.s10.t6.23

*Brahman-Atman unity theory (Brahmatmaikyam)* The contributing thinkers to the Upanishads held that the primary cause or absolute essence of all phenomena in the world and human life is Brahman or Atman, and they paid the greatest attention to the relationship between Brahman and Atman. As a matter of fact, Brahman-Atman relationship is a central topic most Upanishads chose to discuss at great length.

v1.c7.s10.t6.24

The word “Brahman” was not first proposed by the Upanishads. In pondering the primary cause or supreme “lord” responsible for the creation of the world, besides “Brahmā”, the Brahmana and the Aranyaka also mentioned the concept of “Brahman”, albeit rather ambiguously and infrequently. And when the first Upanishad began to emerge, “Brahman” as an abstract philosophical concept also came to dominate the contemporary Indian philosophical debate.

v1.c7.s10.t6.25

In the Upanishads, Brahman was depicted by most thinkers as the essence of all things and the supreme being of the universe. For instance, according to Chandogya Upanishad 3.14.1, “All this is truly Brahman”, and Shvetashvatara Upanishad 3.7 also states that “The Supreme Lord(Brahman) is higher than Virat, beyond Hiranyagarbha”.

v1.c7.s10.t6.26

[Figure: *Upanishads, English edition* *(front cover)*]

v1.c7.s10.t6.27

Some Upanishads also described Brahman, or the “Supreme Being” equivalent to Brahman, as “Vijana” (“Consciousness”). For instance, *Aitareya Upanishad* 3.1.3 states that “All this is guided by Vijana, is supported by Vijana. The basis is Vijana.” It’s worth noting, however, that the “Vijana” concept in the Upanishads is distinct from the regular concept of “consciousness”; it is not a concrete manifestation of things, but rather, the fundamental basis of everything. Under most circumstances, Brahman is considered to be above all concrete things.

v1.c7.s10.t6.28

The Upanishads thinkers believed that as a supreme state of being, Brahman adopts no concrete form and exhibits no concrete attribute, or it will be subject to the constraints or limitations that come with concrete things, thus disqualifying it as a “supreme” being. Brahman cannot be understood or expressed in regular, secular terms, for the simple reason that anything that can be understood or expressed in concepts or words is limited, while true Brahman shall be infinite. There is no way to accurately “define” Brahman using ordinary, worldly concepts. In order to grasp the true meaning of Brahman, one must try and understand it from the various negations thereof. The only valid attempt to define Brahman is to use the famous phrase “neti-neti” (“not this - not this”). In other words, in describing Brahman, we shall relinquish the notion that Brahman have concrete attributes or forms and focus instead on describing what Brahman is not, rather than what it is. As *Kena Upanishad* 2.3 puts it, most brilliantly, “It is not known by those who know It; It is known by those who do not know It.”

v1.c7.s10.t6.29

The reason why many thinkers adopted the “negative” approach to describe Brahman is that the supremacy or essentiality of Brahman can be highlighted in this way. Although the Upanishads also contain many passages directly addressing the characteristics and attributes of Brahman, on the whole, their primary emphasis was invariably placed on the indescribability, formlessness and attributelessness of Brahman. This overarching belief held a tremendous sway over the later development of the Indian religious philosophy, exerting a notable influence not only on the orthodox philosophical schools of Brahmanism, but also on some unorthodox schools of philosophy.

v1.c7.s10.t6.30

In Sanskrit, “Atman” has many meanings, including self, breathing, spirit, body, transcendent self, etc. In the Upanishads, however, the word is normally used to denote the following two meanings:

v1.c7.s10.t6.31

The first one is the individual self, a “small” kind of self in the sense that it refers merely to the owner of body organs or the centre of life activities. As is stated in *Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanishad* 3.7.23, “he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal; unseen, but seeing; unheard, but hearing; unperceived, but perceiving; unknown, but knowing. There is no other seer but he, there is no other hearer but he, there is no other perceiver but he, there is no other knower but he. This is thy Self (Atman), the ruler within, the immortal.”

v1.c7.s10.t6.32

The other meaning of “Atman” is “Brahman”. Instead of the word “Brahman”, many Upanishads used the word “Atman” in describing Brahman as the source and essence of the material world. And the “Atman” used for this purpose is the so-called “(greater) Self”. *Chāndogya Upanishad* 6.9.4 states that “Now that which is the subtle essence, in it all that exists has its True Self. It is Pure Being. It is Atman, and, O Svetaketu, That thou art.” Verse 7.26.1 of the same book also explains that “When one sees this, thinks this, knows this, one’s breath is of Atman; one’s hope is of Atman; one’s memory is of Atman; one’s space is of Atman; one’s fire is of Atman; one’s water are of Atman; one’s appearance and disappearance are of Atman; one’s food is of Atman; one’s strength is of Atman; one’s understanding is of Atman; one’s meditation is of Atman; one’s intelligence is of the self; one’s will is of Atman; one’s mind is of Atman; one’s speech is of Atman; one’s name is of Atman; one’s mantras are of Atman; one’s actions are of Atman; all this is of Atman.” As we can see, the “Atman” used in the quoted verses refers to the fundamental essence of everything, and therefore has virtually the same meaning as “Brahman”.

v1.c7.s10.t6.33

In the Upanishads and later-day Indian religious philosophy, the word “Atman” often adopts the first meaning ie unless otherwise specified, “Atman” shall mean the owner of an individual life, the controller of one’s spirit and consciousness, or the reincarnated. Used in this sense, the word is often translated as “soul” too.

v1.c7.s10.t6.34

Among the various theories on Brahman-Atman relationship as proposed in the Upanishads, there is a dominant one ie the Brahman-Atman unity theory (Brahmatmaikyam). The proponents of the theory posited that Brahman and Atman are essentially one and the same, and “everything is nothing but Brahman”. In other words, everyone has an individual self (“small self”), and others’ “small self”, to one, are external objects, while one’s “small self”, to others, is also an external object. Thus, countless “small selves” and related things in actuality constitute the myriad external phenomena and objects. In illustrating this, *Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanishad* 3.7.15 states that “He who, dwelling in all things, Yet is other than all things, Whom all things do not know, Whose body all things are, Who controls all things from within, He is your soul, the inner controller - The immortal.” In here, one’s self and the “inner controller” of all things are actually one and the same. Verse 2 of *Mandukya Upanishad* puts it still more clearly: “All this, verily, is Brahman. The Self is Brahman”.

v1.c7.s10.t6.35

The Upanishad thinkers believed that, the overwhelming multiplicity of “small selves” or worldly things notwithstanding, only Brahman, as the highest and infinite being, is real. Anyone who treats Brahman and Atman as two separate things, or only regards Atman as the fundamental essence of a person and fails to recognise the grand quality of Brahman, is bound to fall into an abyss of delusion and agony. As Verse 7 of the *Isha Upanishad* puts it, “He who has known that all beings have become one with his own self, and he who has seen the oneness of existence, what sorrow and what delusion can overwhelm him?”

v1.c7.s10.t6.36

Brahman-Atman unity theory (Brahmatmaikyam) is the central theory of the Upanishads. It emphasises the unity and oneness between the nature and one’s true self. More importantly, it established the existence of a supreme being that controls and determines everything in the natural as well the human world - a notion of special importance to the ruling class of ancient India. The Indian caste system first came into being as early as the Vedic period, and among the four main classes (also called varnas), the Brahmins is the most superior, with the Brahmanism, a religion representing the interests and beliefs of the Brahmins, enjoying a dominant status on the Indian philosophical scene. The mainstream theory of the Brahmanist philosophy is Brahmatmaikyam (Brahman-Atman unity), a notion well-enshrined by the Brahmins caste because it conveniently lends credence to their assertion that, since there is an eternal, supreme being that dominates the natural and human world, the Brahmins, as the most superior among the varnas, shall too have a legitimate claim to, and a God-given right of, enteral superiority and domination. The “Brahman” concept in the Brahmanist philosophy actually corresponds to the caste of “Brahmins”. In consequence, the Brahman-Atman unity theory (Brahmatmaikyam) maintained a strong sway over the Indian philosophical scene - as dominated by Brahmanism or Hinduism - in the ensuing centuries.

v1.c7.s10.t6.37

Reincarnation and release theory

v1.c7.s10.t6.38

Most schools of religious philosophy in ancient India had reincarnation and release theories of their own. Some rudiments of the theory can be detected in Veda, but it was in the Upanishads that the notion first acquired a clearly-defined theoretical framework.

v1.c7.s10.t6.39

In the opinion of many Upanishadic thinkers, reincarnation stems from people’s ignorance or unwisdom. It occurs entirely because of people’s failure to realize the Brahman-Atman unity, to recognise that the countless “small selves” that constitute the world of phenomena are in essence “Brahman”, and to acknowledge the soleness and realness of “Brahman”, leading to the wrong impression that besides Brahman (the only real being), there are also a vast multiplicity of other real things in the world, which drives their futile pursuit of insubstantial objects. Predictably, these pursuits almost never yield real or full satisfaction, thus giving rise to ceaseless pain and agony. Such ill-advised human actions will also generate “Karma”, which in turn will exert a negative impact on relevant people’s “Atman” (“small self”), causing him or her to be stuck in a never ending cycle of reincarnation and suffering. It’s worth noting here that the systematisation of the reincarnation theory in the Upanishads was a process of gradual, progressive development.

v1.c7.s10.t6.40

Some Upanishads proposed a “five-fire-and-two-path” theory to describe reincarnation. The so-called “Five Fires” refer to the five stages of the reincarnation process ie after cremation, the dead rises to the moon, then turns into rain, which becomes food after falling to the ground, which, once consumed, turns into semen, and from semen are all these creatures born. The “Two Paths” refer to the “Path of Gods” and the “Path of Ancestors”. “Path of gods”, also known as the “path of the sun”, is a path along which one entres Brahmaloká after death without ever returning to the world he previously lived in; while “Path of ancestors”, aka the “path of the moon”, is a path along which the dead one returns to the world he formerly inhabited after going through the “Five Fires” in their respective order.

v1.c7.s10.t6.41

In addition to the “five-fire-and-two-path” theory, a “three-path-and-four-way-of-birth” theory was also upheld in certain Upanishads. The “Three Paths” refer to the “Path of Gods”, the “Path of Ancestors”, and the “Path of Animals”, while the “Four Ways of Birth” refer to womb-born (jalābuja); egg-born (aṇḍaja); moisture-born (saṁsedaja); and seed-born (bījaja). The theory mainly covers the various physical manifestations of reincarnation. According to quite a few Upanishads, whether one’s reincarnation will be good or bad is determined by one’s prior actions. As *Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanishad* 3.2.13 enlightens, “one indeed becomes good through good work and evil through evil work”. *Chāndogya Upanishad* 5.10.7 also stipulates in clear terms that “When one acts piously, he attains a good birth. He is born as a brahmana or a kshatriya or a vaisya. When one acts sinfully, he attains a sinful birth. He is born as a dog, a pig, or an outcaste.” “Acting piously” means to abide by the religious rules of Brahmanism, fulfill one’s caste duties, study the doctrines of Brahmanism, and come to fully understand the Brahman-Atman unity and oneness; while “acting sinfully” means failing to fulfill one’s caste duties or acting in a way not befitting of one’s caste status.

v1.c7.s10.t6.42

Although the Upanishads specified good reincarnation and bad reincarnation, it shall be pointed out that the good and bad here are only relative. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as “good” reincarnation, because one is condemned to pain and agony as long as he or she is still stuck in the cycle of reincarnation. Therefore, according to the basic belief upheld in the Upanishads, the truest “good karma” shall mean exiting the reincarnation cycle altogether and achieving ultimate release. To attain this goal, one must strive to eliminate ignorance or unwisdom. This is the only path leading to the summum bonum.

v1.c7.s10.t6.43

The reincarnation and release theory and the Brahman-Atman unity theory are in actuality closely related in the Upanishads. Many Upanishadic thinkers believed that karma and reincarnation originate from people’s desires and actions induced by said desires, which can be directly attributed to people’s ignorance or unwisdom. Complete release can only be attained by acquiring wisdom on Brahman and coming to fully understand the Brahman-Atman unity. Once one realises that everything is Brahman and one’s true self is Brahman, he or she won’t succumb to external temptation and futilely pursue unreal objects anymore. No desires,no actions; no actions, no karma; no karma, no reincarnation, thereby achieving the ultimate release.

v1.c7.s10.t6.44

*Chāndogya Upanishad* 7.25.2 states, “ The Self, indeed, is all this. Verily, he who sees this, reflects on this and understands this delights in the self sports with the self, rejoices in the self revels in the Self. Even while living in the body he becomes a self-ruler. He wields unlimited freedom in all the worlds.” “But those who think differently from this have others for their rulers they live in perishable worlds. They have no freedom in all the worlds”. *Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanishad* 4.4.8 also enlightens, “The sages - the knowers of Brahman - also go to the heavenly sphere after the fall of the body, being freed even while living.”

v1.c7.s10.t6.45

This approach to achieving total release as prescribed by the Upanishads is essentially a wisdom-based approach, which was later widely adopted and further improved by many schools of religious philosophy in ancient India. However, it’s worth noting that these schools tended to understand and interpret “wisdom” differently.

v1.c7.s10.t6.46

Basic elements theory

v1.c7.s10.t6.47

The Upanishadic thinkers’ viewpoints regarding the primary cause for everything in the world are mostly reflected in their theory on the Brahman-Atman relationship. Besides the overarching Brahman-Atman theory, there are also some related theories or ideas upheld in the Upanishads, the most prominent one being the Upanishadic theory on the world’s basic elements. The theory held that the world is composed of certain basic elements, which are mainly material by nature. The Upanishads contain the earliest descriptions of such material elements as earth, water, fire and wind, which were frequently mentioned in the philosophical discourse in ancient India. Not a few Upanishadic thinkers even considered these elements to be the fundamental essence of the world. For instance, numerous chapters of the *Chāndogya Upanishad* contain references to such elements as water, earth (food), air, fire, sky, and wind, regarding them as the world’s foundational elements. In relevant Upanishads, these elements were mentioned both separately and collectively.

v1.c7.s10.t6.48

In addition, such concepts as “anda” and “annam” were also mentioned in the Upanishads, which are also related to material elements. The so-called “anda” is shaped like an egg, and is directly responsible for generating all kinds of concrete phenomena in the world. According to *Chāndogya Upanishad* 3.19.1-2, “In the beginning this universe was non-existent. It became existent. It grew. It turned into an egg (anda). The egg lay for the period of a year. Then it broke open. Of the two halves of the egg-shell, one half was of silver, the other of gold. That which was of silver became the earth; that which was of gold, heaven. What was the thick membrane of the white became the mountains; the thin membrane of the yolk, the must and the clouds. The veins became the rivers; the fluid in the bladder, the ocean.”

v1.c7.s10.t6.49

The so-called “annam” refers to matter, from which all things also stem. As *Taittiriya Upanishads* 3.2.1 explains, “for from the annam, verily, are these beings born; by the annam, when born, do they live; into the annam do they entre, do they merge.”

v1.c7.s10.t6.50

Although these concepts don’t constitute any particular material elements, they nonetheless boast a material nature, having exerted significant influence on certain schools of philosophy which gained great popularity later in India.

v1.c7.s10.t6.51

On the whole, in the days of the Upanishads, the basic elements theory was by no means a dominant theory in comparison with the Brahman-Atman theory and the reincarnation theory. Moreover, the theory also tended to be mixed with the two other theories in the Upanishadic texts. For instance, when mentioning “annam”, *Taittiriya Upanishads* 3.2.1 also claims that “annam is Brahman”. Such instances are not uncommon in the Upanishads, in which many material concepts are considered equivalent to Brahman, which goes to show that the Upanishadic thinkers were not thinking in a consistent way while compiling the books, with many important notions expressed in an equivocal and ambiguous manner.

v1.c7.s10.t6.52

Influences

v1.c7.s10.t6.53

The Upanishads occupied a prominent position on the Indian philosophical scene. The theories contained in the book have played a vital role in the development of Indian culture, especially the development of the later-day Indian religious philosophy and the formation of its basic characteristics. Varied and diverse in contents, the Upanishads upheld the Brahmanist doctrines as its mainstream theories, wherein other non-Brahmanist ideas were also incorporated. In addition to being revered by the Brahmanist school of philosophy, the Upanishadic texts also received its fair share of attention from Buddhism and numerous other schools of thought, with its theories having been extensively adsorbed or borrowed by the majority of schools of thought in the history of Indian philosophy.

v1.c7.s10.t6.54

The core theory enshrined in the Upanishads is “Brahman-Atman unity”, an outstanding theory that was later inherited and further improved by the Vedanta school. The latter’s “Advaita Vedanta theory” was actually evolved from the Upanishadic “Brahman-Atman unity” theory. This philosophical theory had wielded considerable influence on the Indian philosophical scene well into contemporary times. Many of the important issues discussed by contemporary Indian philosophers originate from the Upanishads, or are otherwise related to the canon.

v1.c7.s10.t6.55

The Upanishadic “basic elements theory” helped incubate the later-day schools of natural philosophy in India and their key theories, especially the “atomism”, a theory popular not just in Brahmanist schools of thought such as the Vaisheshika school and the Nyaya school, but also in non-Brahmanist systems, including Jainism and Buddhism. Although different schools of thought tended to interpret the roles and status of the elements differently, they all associated the formation of the world with these elements, albeit in varying degrees. It is fair to say that they own their theories on the world creation to the Upanishads.

v1.c7.s10.t6.56

The Upanishadic “reincarnation and release” theory has also become a popular philosophical concept among all major philosophical and religious schools in India. With the exception of the Lokayata School, all Indian philosophical schools of significance have inherited and added to the theory in varying degrees.

v1.c7.s10.t6.57

In examining, describing and analyzing Brahman, the Upanishads adopted the famous “Zhequan” approach, a negation-based way of thinking. Many Indian thinkers see as a fundamental way to acquire the highest truth or reach the highest state of knowledge. Later adopted and further improved by the Vedanta school, this particular method also caught the attention of Buddhism, where it was widely applied in the Buddhist scriptural commentaries, especially those of the Mahayana Buddhism, having become a popular and highly “Indian” way of thinking.

v1.c7.s10.t6.58

Spread and Influence in China

v1.c7.s10.t6.59

The Upanishadic theories also spread to China, mainly through the country’s importation of Buddhist texts. The Chinese versions of some Buddhist scriptures contain references to the Upanishadic theories; however, the word “Upanishad” itself never appeared in any of the Chinese Buddhist cannons, which normally don’t distinguish between the Upanishadic texts and the Vedas texts. Therefore, the “Vedas” referred to in Chinese Buddhist books also cover the Upanishads.

v1.c7.s10.t6.60

One Chinese Buddhist book that contains the most Upanishadic elements is *Típó púsà shì léngjiā jīng zhōngwài dào xiǎochéng nièpán lùn*, which was translated by Bodhiruci during the Northern Wei dynasty. The book gave a graphic description of the egg (anda) concept as proposed by *Chāndogya Upanishad* 3.19.1-2 (“In the beginning this universe was non-existent. It became existent. It grew. It turned into an egg (anda). The egg lay for the period of a year. Then it broke open. Of the two halves of the egg-shell, one half was of silver, the other of gold. That which was of silver became the earth; that which was of gold, heaven.”), showing that this particular Upanishadic concept had already been very well-known in China at that time.

v1.c7.s10.t6.61

Much attention has also been paid to the Upanishads in modern China. Fully aware of the great importance of the Upanishads in the Indian intellectual history, Chinese scholars studying Indian culture, especially Indian philosophy, all show commendable, if not ardent, interest in the canon. Most of the Upanishads have been translated into Chinese and published in China. Many research papers on the Upanishads have also been published in relevant Chinese scholarly journals. There are also chapters dedicated to the Upanishads in books published in China about Indian philosophy or religions. In Indian philosophy courses offered in Chinese universities or research institutions, the theories of the Upanishads are also extensively mentioned.

v1.c7.s10.t6.62

(*Yao Weiqun*)

Cites (13)