The History of Indian Literature c8.473

Language: English

c8.473.1

Of the Atharvopanishads proper the *Muṇḍaka-* and *Praśna-*Upanishads (21, 22) connect themselves most closely with the Upanishads of the older Vedas and with the Vedánta doctrine;¹⁷⁴ indeed, in the Vedánta-Sútra of Bádaráyaṇa reference is made to them quite as often as to these others. The *Muṇḍaka-Upanishad*, mostly in verse, and so called because it "shears" away, or frees from, all error, is very like the Káṭhakop. with regard to doctrine and style; it has, in fact, several passages in common with it. At the outset it announces itself as an almost direct revelation of Brahman himself. For Añgiras, who communicates it to Śaunaka, has obtained it from Bháradvája Satyaváha, and the latter again from Añgir,∗ the pupil of Atharvan, to whom it was revealed by Brahman himself. Shortly afterwards, Vedic literature is opposed, as the inferior science, to speculation. The former is stated to consist of the four Vedas, and of the six Vedáñgas, which are singly enumerated. Some manuscripts here insert mention of the *itihása-puráṇa-nyáya-mímáṅsá-dharmaśástráṇi*; but this is evidently a later addition. Such additions are also found in other passages of this Upanishad in the manuscripts.

c8.473.2

This enumeration (here occurring for the first time) of the different Vedáñgas is of itself sufficient to show that at that time the whole material of the Vedas had been systematically digested, and that out of it a new literature had arisen, which no longer belongs to the Vedic, but to the following period. We may further conclude from the mention of the Tretá in the course of the work that the Yuga-system also had already attained its final form. On the other hand, we here find the words *kálí* (the dark one) and *karálí* (the terrible one) still reckoned among the seven tongues of fire, whereas in the time of the dramatic poet Bhavabhúti (eighth century A.D.) they are names of Durgá—the wife of Śiva, developed out of Agni (and Rudra)—who under these names was the object of a bloody sacrificial worship. Since evidently a considerable time is required for the transition from the former meaning to the latter, the Muṇḍakop.

c8.473.3

must be separated by a very wide interval from the date of Bhavabhúti,—a conclusion which follows besides from the circumstance that it is on several occasions turned to account in the Vedánta-Sútra, and that it has been commented by Śaṃkara.—The *Praśnopanishad*, in prose, seems to be borrowed from an Atharva-Bráhmaṇa, viz., that of the Pippaláda-school.∗ It contains the instruction by Pippaláda of six different teachers, amongst whom the following names are especially significant in regard to the date of the Upanishad: Kauśalya Áśvaláyana, Vaidarbhi Bhárgava, and Kabandhin Kátyáyana. In the course of the work Hiraṇyanábha, a prince of the Kośalas, is also mentioned,—the same doubtless who is specially extolled in the Puráṇas. As in the Muṇḍakopan., so here also some interpolated words are found which betray themselves as such by the fact that they are passed over by Śaṃkara in his commentary. They refer to Atharvan himself, and to the half *mátrá* (mora), to which the word *om*, here appearing in its full glory, is entitled in addition to its three moræ (*a*, *u*, *m*), and are evidently a later addition by some one who did not like to miss the mention of these two subjects in an Atharvopanishad, as in these they otherwise invariably occur. Both Muṇḍaka and Praśna have been several times edited and translated, see *I. St.*, i. 280, ff., 439, ff., again recently by Dr. Roer in vol. viii.

c8.473.4

of the *Bibliotheca Indica* together with Śaṃkara's commentary.¹⁷⁵—The name of Pippaláda is borne by another Upanishad, the *Garbha-Upanishad* (23), which I add here for this reason, although in other respects this is not quite its proper place. Its contents differ from those of all the other Upanishads, and relate to the human body, to its formation as embryo and the various parts of which it is composed, and the number and weight of these. The whole is a commentary on a *trishtubh* strophe prefixed to it, the words of which are passed in review singly and further remarks then subjoined. The mention of the names of the seven musical notes of the present day, as well as of the weights now in use (which are found besides in Varáha Mihira), brings us to a tolerably modern date; so also the use of Devadatta in the sense of *Caius*. A few passages in which, among other things, mention is made, for instance, of Náráyaṇa as Supreme Lord, and of the Sáṃkhya and Yoga as the means of attaining knowledge of him, reappear in the fourteenth book—a supplementary one—of Yáska's Nirukti. Whether Śaṃkara expounded this Upanishad is as yet uncertain. It is translated in *Ind. Stud.*, ii. 65–71.¹⁷⁶—In the *Brahmopanishad* also (24), Pippaláda appears, here with the title *bhagaván Aṅgirás*; he is thus identified with the latter, as the authority for the particular doctrine here taught which he imparts to Śaunaka (*maháśála*), exactly as is the case in the Muṇḍakopanishad.

c8.473.5

There is, for the rest, a considerable difference between this Upanishad¹⁷⁷ and the Muṇḍaka and Praśna; it belongs more to the Yoga-Upanishads properly so called. It consists of two sections: the first, which is in prose, treats, in the first place, of the majesty of Átman; and later on, in its last portion, it alleges Brahman, Vishṇu, Rudra, and Akshara to be the four *pádas* (feet) of the *nirváṇam brahma*; the first eleven of the nineteen verses of the second section discuss the subject of the Yogin being allowed to lay aside his *yajnopavíta*, or sacred thread, as he stands in the most intimate relation to the *sútra*, or mundane thread; the whole therefore amounts to a mere play upon words. The last eight verses are borrowed from the Śvetáśvataropanishad, Muṇḍakopanishad, and similar Upanishads, and again describe the majesty of the One.—The *Máṇḍúkyopanishad* (25–28) is reckoned as consisting of four Upanishads, but only the prose portion of the first of these, which treats of the three and a half *mátrás* of the word *om*, is to be looked upon as the real Máṇḍúkyopanishad, all the rest is the work of Gauḍapáda,∗ whose pupil Govinda was the teacher of Śaṃkara; it dates therefore from about the seventh century A.D. Similarly, there are two works by Śaṃkara himself specified among the Upanishads, viz., the *Áptavajrasúchí* (29), in prose, and the *Tripurí* (30), likewise in prose; both composed in a Vedánta sense.

c8.473.6

The former treats at the outset of what makes a *Bráhmaṇa* a *Bráhmaṇa*; it is not *játi* (birth), *varṇa* (colour), *páṇḍitya* (learning); but the *Brahmavid* (he who knows Brahman) is alone a *Bráhmaṇa*.† Then it passes to the different definitions of *moksha* (liberation), stating the only correct one to be the perception of the oneness of *jíva* (the individual soul) and *parameśvara* (the All-Soul), and lastly, distinctly rejecting all sects, it expounds the two highly important words *tat* (the Absolute) and *tvam* (the Objective). The *Tripurí* treats of the relation of Átman to the world, and stands as fourth *prakaraṇa* in a series of seven little Vedánta writings attributed to Śaṃkara.¹⁷⁸ The *Sarvopanishatsáropanishad* (31), in prose, may be considered as a kind of catechism of these doctrines; its purpose is to answer several queries prefixed to it as an introduction.¹⁷⁹ The same is the case with the *Nirálam-bopanishad* (32),¹⁸⁰ which, however, exhibits essentially the Yoga standpoint. The *Átmopanishad* (33), in prose, contains an inquiry by Aṅgiras into the three factors (*purushas*), the body, the soul, and the All-Soul.∗ The *Práṇágnihotropanishad* (34), in prose, points out the relation of the parts and functions of the body to those of the sacrifice, whence by implication it follows that the latter is unnecessary.

c8.473.7

At its conclusion it promises to him who reads this Upanishad the same reward as he receives who expires in Váráṇasí, viz., deliverance from transmigration.¹⁸¹ The *Árshikopanishad* (? 35) contains a dialogue on the nature of Átman between Viśvámitra, Jamadagni, Bharadvája, Gautama, and Vasishṭha, the last of whom, appealing to the opinion of "K'hak" (? another MS. in Anquetil has "Kapl" = Kapila ?), obtains the assent of the others.¹⁸²