Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Literature v1.c8.s8: Āraṇyakas and Upaniṣads

A History of Indian Literature v1.c8.s8

Language
English

Āraṇyakas and Upaniṣads

v1.c8.s8.1

When R. Garbe³ calls the sacrificial science of the Brāhmaṇas "the only literary production of these barren centuries preceding the awakening of philosophical speculation," he gives expression to a universal, but in my opinion erroneous, view. It would be too terrible to think that, with such a gifted people as the Indians must have been, even on the evidence of the Ṛgvedic hymns, the futile hair-splittings on the purpose and meaning of sacrificial ceremonies should have occupied the entire thought even of the priests, to say nothing of the warriors and the remaining classes of the people. As a matter of fact we do find in the Brāhmaṇas themselves, as Sāyaṇa has already emphasized, and as we have partly seen above, beside ritual-precepts (Kalpa) and the discussions on the same, also myths and legends (itihāsa), cosmogonic myths (purāṇa), epic song verses (gāthā) and songs in praise of heroes (nārāśaṁsī.¹ In other words: the beginnings of epic poetry reach back into the period of the Brāhmaṇas. It is a matter of course that the great and costly sacrifices, with which the Brāhmaṇas deal, were only possible on the supposition of an active and industrious people; and it is unthinkable that the warriors and merchants, the farmers and herd owners, the craftsmen and labourers of that time should have sung no songs, related no stories. A little of what was sung and narrated in India at that early period, is preserved in the Vedic texts themselves (as, for example, the legend of Śunaḥśepa), but much is preserved in the later epics and Purāṇas. Moreover, the Brāhmaṇas presuppose the beginnings of grammar, phonetics, astronomy, *i.e.*, of those sciences which were later on pursued more independently as Vedāṅgas²); (neither does the "awakening of philosophical speculation" come *after* the period of the Brāhmaṇas: It comes *before* this period. We have seen how in some hymns of the Ṛgveda doubts and scruples already arose concerning the popular belief in gods and the priestly cult.

v1.c8.s8.2

³ Beiträge zur indischen Kulturgeschichte (Berlin, 1903), p. 6.

v1.c8.s8.3

¹ *Max Müller*, "History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature," 2nd ed., London, 1860, p. 344. Cf. Śat. XI, 5, 6, 8; 7, 9. "Knowers of the narratives" (Ākhyānavidas) are mentioned, in the Aitareya-Brāhmaṇa, III, 25, as a special class of literary men.

v1.c8.s8.4

² On the beginnings of the Vedāṅgas in the Brāhmaṇas, cf. *Max Müller*, "History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature," pp. 110 ff.

v1.c8.s8.5

These sceptics and thinkers, these first philosophers of ancient India certainly did not remain isolated. That they, too, founded schools of thought, that their teachings were diffused, is proved by the "philosophical" hymns of the Atharvaveda and isolated portions of the Yajurveda-Saṃhitās, in which, it is true, the teachings of the philosophers often appear only in caricature.¹ But even these caricatures prove that philosophical speculation was further pursued also during the centuries in which the sacrificial science flourished.

v1.c8.s8.6

¹ *Cf.* above pp. 98 ff., 149 ff., 183 f.

v1.c8.s8.7

We are not, however, likely to find these oldest philosophers of ancient India among the priests, who were engaged in the science of sacrifice. For their teachings, which were directed against the plurality of gods, were in obvious contradiction to the interest of these priests. We can scarcely imagine that the Brahmans, who lived by the sacrifices, had many men amongst them who doubted the existence of Indra himself, and raised the question whether there were any sense in sacrificing to the gods.² It is much more probable that such sceptics and thinkers were to be found among those who were the most obnoxious to the priests, among the "misers," who did not *believe*, *i.e.*, who did not sacrifice and gave no gifts to the priests.

v1.c8.s8.8

² *Cf.* above, p. 98.

v1.c8.s8.9

The fact that the warrior-caste was closely connected with the intellectual life and the literary activity of ancient times, is proved by numerous passages in the Upaniṣads, in fact already in the Brāhmaṇas. In the Kauṣītaki-Brāhmaṇa (XXVI, 5) a king Pratardana converses with the priests concerning the sacrificial science. In Book XI of the Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa there is repeated mention of King Janaka of Videha, who confounded all priests by his knowledge. The passage in which Janaka questions the priests Śvetaketu, Somaśuṣma and Yājñavalkya as to how they perform the fire-sacrifice (Agnihotra) is particularly instructive. None of them gives a satisfactory answer. But Yājñavalkya receives a gift of a hundred cows, because he has inquired the most deeply into the meaning of the sacrifice, although, as King Janaka remarks, even upon him the true meaning of the Agnihotra has not yet dawned. After the king has departed, the priests say to one another: "Truly, this warrior has confounded us by his speech. Well! We will challenge him to a theological debate (Brahmodya)." Yājñavalkya, however, dissuades them, saying: "We are Brahmans, but he is only a warrior. If we overcome him, whom shall we say that we have overcome? But if he should overcome us, the people would say of us: 'A warrior has overcome the Brahmans'; do not think of such a thing!" The two other priests agreed with him, but Yājñavalkya betakes himself to King Janaka and begs to be instructed by him.¹ Ayasthūṇa, too, the sacrificer, who instructs his priest Śaulvāyana,² can hardly be a Brahman, although Sāyaṇa declares him to be a Ṛṣi. (According to tradition, even the Ṛṣis or composers of the hymns of the Ṛgveda were by no means always members of the priesthood. Thus it is said of a Ṛṣi Kavaṣa, that he was the son of a female slave, a non-Brahman.) When he wanted to participate in a great sacrifice, the priests drove him away, to die of hunger and thirst in the desert. But the waters and the goddess Sarasvatī take pity on him, he 'sees' a hymn, whereupon the priests recognise him as a Ṛṣi and receive him back.³

v1.c8.s8.10

¹ Śat. XI, 6, 2; *cf.* XI, 3, 1, 2-4; XI, 6, 3.

v1.c8.s8.11

² Śat. XI, 4, 2, 17-20.

v1.c8.s8.12

³ Aitareya-Brāhmaṇa, II, 19.

v1.c8.s8.13

(In the Upaniṣads, however, we find not only kings, but also women and even people of dubious descent, taking an active part in the literary and philosophical aspirations and often possessors of the highest knowledge. Thus in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad, *Gārgī*, the daughter of Vacaknu, questions Yājñavalkya at great length upon the origin of all existence, until the latter says: "Ask not too much, Gārgī, that thy head may not burst. Truly, concerning divinity one must not ask too much. Thou dost ask too much, Gārgī; ask not too much!" And in another place the same Gārgī, in the midst of an assembly of disputative scholars, advances towards the famous teacher Yājñavalkya with the words: "I arise against thee, Yājñavalkya! As a hero's son from Benares or from Videha strings the slackened bow and arises with two foe-piercing arrows in his hand, so I arise against thee with two questions—answer me those!" (In the same Upaniṣad Yājñavalkya instructs his wife Maitreyī in the highest knowledge of the Ātman.¹ How little this highest knowledge was the sole privilege of the priests, is again proved by the amusing story of Raikva with the bullock-team,² who is sitting under his cart and scratching the itch, but who, in the possession of the highest wisdom is proud as a king. Humbly the wealthy donor Janaśruti approaches him in order to be instructed by him. Raikva calls him a śūdra³ and laughs at the presents which the rich man offers him. Only when the latter gives him his beautiful daughter in marriage, does he condescend to instruct him.⁴ The following story is also delightfully ingenuous:

v1.c8.s8.14

¹ Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad, III, 6; III, 8; II, 4 and IV, 5.

v1.c8.s8.15

² The meaning of *sayugvan* translated by "with the bullock-team," is not certain. But other explanations (s. H. Lüders, SBA., 1916, pp. 278 ff.) are not satisfactory. Raikva is called a "*Brāhmaṇa*" in the sense of "one who knows the Brahman," not in the sense of "a member of the priestly class."

v1.c8.s8.16

³ The word is here used as a term of abuse.

v1.c8.s8.17

⁴ Chāndogya-Upaniṣad, IV, 1-3.

v1.c8.s8.18

"1. Satyakāma, the son of Jabālā, addressed his mother and said: 'I wish to become a Brahmacārin (religious student), mother. Of what family am I?'

v1.c8.s8.19

2. She said to him: ‘I do not know, my child, of what family thou art. In my youth when I had to move about much as a servant (waiting on the guests in my father’s house), I conceived thee. I do not know of what family thou art. I am Jabālā by name, thou art Satyakāma (Philalethes). Say that thou art Satyakāma Jābāla.’
3. He going to Gautama Hāridrumata said to him, ‘I wish to become a Brahmacārin with you, Sir. May I come to you, Sir?’
4. He said to him: ‘Of what family are you, my friend?’ He replied: ‘I do not know, Sir, of what family I am. I asked my mother, and she answered: “In my youth when I had to move about much as a servant, I conceived thee. I do not know of what family thou art. I am Jābāla by name, thou art Satyakāma,” I am therefore Satyakāma Jābāla, Sir.’
5. He said to him: ‘No one but a true Brāhmaṇa would thus speak out. Go and fetch fuel, friend, I shall initiate you. You have not swerved from the truth.’ ”¹

v1.c8.s8.20

¹ Chāndogya-Upaniṣad, IV, 4. Translated by *Max Müller*, SBE., Vol. I, p. 60. In the Vaṃśas or lists of teachers of the Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa numerous teachers are only mentioned by their maternal name. *Cf.* above, p. 194 Note 1. Satyakāma means: “truth-loving.” The passage has also been translated (into German) and explained by *H. Lüders*, SBA., 1922, pp. 227 ff.

v1.c8.s8.21

The passage proves how lightly brahmanical descent was treated at that ancient period, while later—in the law-books—it is again and again emphasized that only the Brahman may teach the Veda, and only a member of the three highest castes may be instructed in the Veda. (In the Upaniṣads, however, we are repeatedly told that kings or warriors are in possession of the highest knowledge, and that Brahmans go to them for instruction.) Thus the Brahman Gautama, father of Śvetaketu, goes to King Pravāhaṇa in order to be instructed by him concerning the Beyond. And it is related that the desire of Gautama was very awkward for the king: for the doctrine which he had to proclaim, had never before penetrated to the Brahmans, “and therefore it is that in all the worlds the mastery has fallen to the share of the warrior-class.” Finally, however, the king does impart the doctrine to him,—and it is the doctrine of *transmigration*, which here, where for the first time it appears clearly and distinctly, proves to be a doctrine which emanated from the warrior-class, and was originally foreign to brahmanical theology.¹ Another passage proves that the chief doctrine of the Upaniṣads, too, the doctrine of the *Ātman*, the All-One, originated in non-brahmanical circles. Here five highly learned Brahmans betake themselves to the wise Uddālaka Āruṇi, in order to learn from him the doctrine of the Ātman. He, however, thought to himself: "These great and learned scholars will question me, and I shall not be able to reply to everything. Well! I will direct them to some one else." And he directed them to *King Aśvapati Kaikeya*, to whom they actually went for instruction.²

v1.c8.s8.22

¹ Chāndogya-Upaniṣad, V, 3. Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Up., VI, 2. In the Kauṣītaki-Up., I, 1 the Kṣatriya Citra instructs the "first of the priests," Āruṇi, about the Beyond.

v1.c8.s8.23

² Chāndogya-Up., V, 11 ff. A version of this narrative is already to be found in Śat., X, 6. 1.

v1.c8.s8.24

While, then, the Brahmans were pursuing their barren sacrificial science, other circles were already engaged upon those highest questions which were at last treated so admirably in the Upaniṣads. From these circles, which originally were not connected with the priestly caste, proceeded the forest-hermits and wandering ascetics, who not only renounced the world and its pleasures, but also kept aloof from the sacrifices and ceremonies of the Brahmans. Different sects, more or less opposed to Brahmanism, were soon formed from these same circles, among which sects the Buddhists attained to such great fame. The extensive propagation of these sects, particularly of Buddhism, proves on what fruitful soil the doctrines of those ancient philosophers must have fallen, and how much response the doctrines which were opposed to the sacrifice found among the cultured classes.

v1.c8.s8.25

This is, however, by no means tantamount to saying that the Brahmans took no part in philosophical speculation; for warriors and members of the higher castes in general were educated in the Brahmans' schools, and there must have been a brisk exchange of philosophical ideas between the Brahmans and the other educated classes at all times.¹ Moreover, not every Brahman was a priest or an adept in the art of the sacrifice. There were Brahmans, both rich and poor, who pursued worldly professions,² and there must have been many of these who sympathised with the sceptics and the exponents of new doctrines. Lastly, as has so often been the case in the history of Indian thought, the Brahmans had the knack of bringing into line with their own priestly wisdom and orthodoxy even such ideas as were in opposition to them. They succeeded in doing this by means of the doctrine of the four Aśramas (stages of life), whereby the ascetic and hermit life was made an essential part of the brāhmaṇical religious system. This doctrine consists of the principle that every "Aryan," *i.e.*, every man belonging to one of the three highest castes, who wishes to lead an ideal life, must pass through four stages of life. First, as a pupil (Brahmacārin), he must live with a teacher and learn the Veda; when his period of training is accomplished, he must found a household, and as a householder (Gṛhastha) beget children and offer the prescribed sacrifices to the gods, or have them offered. On approaching old age, however, he should quit his house, and, as a forest-hermit (Vānaprastha) henceforth perform only limited sacrificial service, but meditate the more upon the mystical and symbolical significance of the sacrifice. But only when he feels his end approaching, shall he give up this sacrifice and meditation also, renounce all good works, and as an ascetic fleeing from the world (Sannyāsin) henceforth ponder only over Brahman, the highest world-principle, and strive for union with it.¹

v1.c8.s8.26

¹ *Cf.* A. *Hillebrandt*, Aus Brahmanas und Upanisaden, pp. 10 ff., with whom I quite agree when he says that the philosophy of the Upaniṣads should be called neither a "Brahmanical" nor a "Kṣatriya philosophy." But it should not be doubted that non-Brahmans, especially Kṣatriyas, had a considerable share in the spiritual and intellectual life of ancient India. See P. *Deussen*, System des Vedanta, Leipzig, 1883, pp. 18 f., AGPh. I, 1, 166; I, 2, 17 ff.; R. *Garbe*, Beiträge zur indischen Kulturgeschichte, Berlin, 1903, pp. 1 ff.; R. *Fick*, The Social Organisation in North-East India in Buddha's Time, transl. by S. *Maitra*, Calcutta, 1920, pp. 90 ff. The view that the Kṣatriyas had an essential share in the development of the Upaniṣad ideas, has been contested by H. *Oldenberg*, Die Lehre der Upanishaden und die Anfänge des Buddhismus, Göttingen, 1915, pp. 166 f.; P. *Oltramare*, L'histoire des idées théosophiques dans l'Inde, 1, 96 f.; A. B. *Keith*, Aitareya Āraṇyaka, p. 50 and JRAS., 1915, p. 550; also by S. *Dasgupta*, A History of Indian Philosophy, I Cambridge, 1922, pp. 33 ff., though he admits (p. 31) "that among the Kṣatriyas in general there existed earnest philosophic enquiries which must be regarded as having exerted an important influence in the formation of the Upaniṣad doctrines." The fact is that the ancient Upaniṣads as literary compositions were arranged in the Brahmanic schools and were "Brahmanical" in this sense. But it does not follow from this, that all or even the most essential ideas contained in these texts were first conceived in priestly circles. It is worth mentioning that even the Āpastambīya-Dharmasūtra (II, 2, 4, 25) permits a Brahman to learn under a Kṣatriya or a Vaiśya teacher "in time of need" (āpadi).

v1.c8.s8.27

² *Cf.* *Oldenberg*, Die Lehre der Upanishaden, etc., p. 5.

v1.c8.s8.28

¹ In the oldest Upaniṣads (Chāndogya-Up. II, 23; VIII, 1) three branches of an ideal life are spoken of, but there is no mention yet of three or four successive stages of life. Only in later Upaniṣads (Maitr. IV, 3; Āśrama-Up.), in the Mahābhārata and in the Dharmaśāstras the Āśrama theory is fully developed. See Deussen, Sechzig Upanishads, pp. 96 f.; ERE., II, 128 ff.; and Jacobi, ERE., II, 802.

v1.c8.s8.29

In the Brāhmaṇas or as appendices to them we find texts which were known as Āraṇyakas or "forest texts." These texts comprised everything which was of a secret, uncanny character, and spelt danger to the uninitiated, and which, for that reason, might only be taught and learnt in the forest, and not in the villages. The main contents of these Āraṇyakas are no longer rules for the performance of the sacrifices and the explanation of ceremonies, but the mysticism and symbolism of sacrifice, and priestly philosophy. After the doctrine of the Āśramas had been set up as the brahmanical ideal of life, these "forest texts" naturally came to be the prescribed portions of the Veda to be studied by forest-hermits.¹) (Now, the oldest Upaniṣads are in part included in these "forest texts," and in part appended to them; and it is often difficult to draw the line between the Āraṇyakas and the Upaniṣads. These texts formed, in more senses than one, the *Vedānta*, *i.e.*, "the end of the Veda."²) Firstly most of these texts are of later origin, and fall chronologically into the *end* of the Vedic period. Further, we must never forget that the whole of this Vedic literature did not consist of written books, but was only transmitted by word of mouth. What we find in the individual Brāhmaṇas, therefore, and usually call "works" or "books" is nothing but the subject of instructions of various priests' schools.) The subject was taught to the pupils within a certain period embracing a number of years during which the pupil had to live with the teacher and serve him. The teaching of that which was the most difficult to understand, the mysteries, the mystical and philosophical doctrines, as they are contained in the Āraṇyakas and Upaniṣads, naturally fell into the *end* of this period of instruction. (These texts form the *end*, too, of the Veda-recital, as a sacred act and religious duty. The later philosophers, lastly, saw in these doctrines of the Upaniṣads not the *end*, but the *final aim* of the Veda.³)

v1.c8.s8.30

¹ *Cf. Oldenberg*, Die Hymnen des Rigveda, I, Berlin, 1888, p. 291 and NGGW., 1915, 382 ff. Rāmānuja (SBE., Vol. 48, p. 645) states that certain mantras and sacrificial rites are discussed at the beginning of Upaniṣads "owing to their having, like the latter, to be studied in the forest." In the Āruṇi-Upaniṣad, 2 (The Minor Upaniṣads, ed. F. O. Schrader, I, p. 7; *Deussen*, Sechzig Upanishads des Veda, p. 693) it is said that the hermit should study of all the Vedas only the Āraṇyaka and the Upaniṣad. Manu, VI, 29, says that the hermit should learn "the Upaniṣad texts" (aupaniṣadīḥ śrutīḥ). Strict rules of austerity are prescribed at the reading of the Upaniṣads, s. Baudhāyana-Dharmaśāstra, II, 10, 18, 15 ff. *Cf.* also *Max Müller*, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, pp. 313 ff.

v1.c8.s8.31

² "Vedānta" means originally only the Upaniṣads. The word was only later used to mean the system of philosophy based on the Upaniṣads.

v1.c8.s8.32

³ *Cf. P. Deussen*, System des Vedanta, pp. 3 f. AGPh., I, 2, p. 5.

v1.c8.s8.33

[As Vedānta or "Veda-end," the Āraṇyakas, as well as the older Upaniṣads, belong to the various Vedic schools; they form, in fact, only component parts of the Brāhmaṇas. Thus an Aitareya-Āraṇyaka, in which the Aitareya-Upaniṣad is included, is tacked on to the Aitareya-Brāhmaṇa of the Ṛg-veda. The Kauṣītaki-Brāhmaṇa, which also belongs to the Ṛg-veda, ends with the Kauṣītaki-Āraṇyaka, of which the Kauṣītaki-Upaniṣad (also called the Kauṣītaki-Brāhmaṇa-Upaniṣad) forms only a part.¹ In the Black Yajurveda the Taittirīya-Āraṇyaka² is only a continuation of the Taittirīya-Brāhmaṇa, and the conclusion of the Āraṇyaka is formed by the Taittirīya-Upaniṣad and the Mahā-Nārāyaṇa-Upaniṣad. In the great Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa of the White-Yajurveda, the first third of Book XIV is an Āraṇyaka, while the end of the book is formed by the greatest and most important of all Upaniṣads, the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad. The Chāndogya-Upaniṣad, the first section of which is nothing but an Āraṇyaka, belongs to a Brāhmaṇa of the Sāmaveda—probably the Tāṇḍya-Mahā-Brāhmaṇa. The so-called Jaiminīya-Upaniṣad-Brāhmaṇa³ is an Āraṇyaka of the Jaiminīya- or Talavakāra-school of the Sāmaveda, and the Kena-Upaniṣad, also called Talavakāra-Upaniṣad, forms a part of it.

v1.c8.s8.34

¹ The Aitareya-Āraṇyaka has been published and translated into English by *A. B. Keith* (Anecdota Oxoniensia, Aryan Series, Part IX, Oxford 1919) and as an appendix to it a portion of the Śāṅkhāyana-Āraṇyaka (VII-XV). Adhyāyas--I and II of this Āraṇyaka are published and translated by *W. Friedlaender*, Der mahāvrata Abschnitt des Çāṅkhāyana-Āraṇyaka, Berlin 1900, Adhyāyas III to VI, by *Cowell*, Calcutta 1901. On the title, antiquity and contents of the Śāṅkhāyana- or Kauṣītaki-Āraṇyaka, *S. Keith*, JRAS., 1908, 363 ff. The Śāṅkhāyana Āraṇyaka, with an Appendix on the Mahāvrata, (translated) by *A. B. Keith*, OTF., London, 1908.

v1.c8.s8.35

² Ed. with Sāyaṇa's Comm. in Bibl. Ind. and in An. SS. No. 36.

v1.c8.s8.36

³ The Jaiminīya or Talavakāra Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa, Text, Translation and Notes by *Hanns Oertel*, in JAOS., Vol. XVI, 1896.

v1.c8.s8.37

With the exception of the Mahā-Nārāyaṇa-Upaniṣad, which was only added to the Taittirīya-Āraṇyaka at a later period, all the above-named Upaniṣads belong to the oldest works of this kind. In language and style they resemble the Brāhmaṇas, component parts of which they are, or to which they are immediately attached. It is the same simple, slightly clumsy *prose*, but—especially in the narrative portions—by no means lacking in beauty. Only half of the Kena-Upaniṣad is metrical, and it is the latest of the Upaniṣads enumerated.) (Although each one of the great Upaniṣads contains, as Deussen¹ says, "earlier and later texts side by side, hence the age of each individual piece must be determined separately," yet even the later portions of the above-mentioned Upaniṣads may claim great antiquity, if only on linguistic grounds.²) [We may take it that the greater Upaniṣads, like the Bṛhadāraṇyaka- and the Chāndogya-Upaniṣad, originated in the *fusion* of several longer or shorter texts which had originally been regarded as separate Upaniṣads. This would also explain the fact that the same texts are sometimes to be found in several Upaniṣads. The individual texts of which the greater Upaniṣads are composed, all belong to a period which cannot be very far removed from that of the Brāhmaṇas and the Āraṇyakas, and is before Buddha and before Pāṇini. For this reason the six above-mentioned Upaniṣads,—Aitareya, Bṛhadāraṇyaka, Chāndogya, Taittirīya, Kauṣītaki and Kena—undoubtedly represent the earliest stage of development in the literature of the Upaniṣads. They contain the so-called Vedānta doctrine in its pure, original form.)

v1.c8.s8.38

¹ AGPh., 1, 2, p 22.

v1.c8.s8.39

² On the language of the Upaniṣads see B Liebich, Panini, Leipzig, 1891, p. 62 ff.; Otto Wecker, Der Gebrauch der Kasus in der Upaniṣadliteratur, Göttingen 1905 (Bezz Beitr) ; W. Kirfel, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Nominalkomposition ir den Upaniṣads und im Epos. Diss, Bonn, 1908; A. Fürst, Der Sprachgebrauch der älteren Upaniṣads verglichen mit dem der früheren vedischen Perioden und des klassischen Sanskrit, Diss. (Tübingen), Göttingen, 1915; also Oldenberg, Zur Geschichte der altindischen Prosa, pp. 28 ff.

v1.c8.s8.40

A few Upaniṣads which are written entirely or for the most part in *verse*, belong to a period which is somewhat later, though still early, and probably pre-Buddhistic. These, too, are assigned to certain Vedic schools, though they have not always come down to us as portions of an Āraṇyaka. In this category we may include the Kaṭha- or Kāṭhaka-Upaniṣad,¹ the very name of which points to its connection with a school of the Black Yajurveda (see above p. 169). The Śvetāśvatara-Upaniṣad,² and the Mahā-Nārāyaṇa-Upaniṣad which has come down to us as an appendix to the Taittirīya-Āraṇyaka, are also counted among the texts of the Black Yajurveda. The short, but most valuable Īśā-Upaniṣad,³ which forms the last section of the Vājasaneyi-Saṁhitā, belongs to the White Yajurveda. The Muṇḍaka-Upaniṣad,⁴ and the Praśna-Upaniṣad,⁵ half of which is in prose, half in verse, belong to the Atharvaveda. Though these six Upaniṣads, too, contain the Vedānta doctrine, we here find it interwoven to a great extent with Sāṁkhya and Yoga doctrines and with monotheistic views. We must, however, leave it to future scholars to decide to what degree the various philosophical doctrines mingled, and to what degree this mingling was consequent upon retouched versions of the text; for all these texts show distinct signs of having been touched up. There are for instance, as many as three separate recensions of the Mahā-Nārāyaṇa-Upaniṣad, and this shows how uncertain the text is.¹

v1.c8.s8.41

¹ Edited with Saṅkara's commentary by Srīdhara-Sāstrī Pāṭhaka, Poona, 1919; translated by W. D. Whitney, Transactions of the American Philological Association, Vol. 21. On text-criticism s. *R. Fritzsche*, ZDMG., 66, 1912, 727 f.; *Hillebrandt*, ZDMG., 68, 1914, 579 ff.; and *Hertel*, Die Weisheit der Upanischaden, pp. 42 ff.

v1.c8.s8.42

² On this Up. see Weber, Ind. Stud. I, 420 ff. and R. G. Bhandarkar, Vaiṣṇavism, Śaivism and Minor Religious Systems (Grundriss III, 6, 1913), pp. 106 ff.

v1.c8.s8.43

³ Translation (with text) and analysis by Aurobindo Ghose, Calcutta (Ideal and Progress Series, No. 5). Metrical translation by *H. Baynes*, Ind. Ant., 26, 1897, 213 ff. On text criticism s *Baynes*, l. c., and *Hertel*, Die Weisheit der Upanischaden, pp. 25 ff.

v1.c8.s8.44

⁴ J. *Hertel* (*Muṇḍaka-Upaniṣad*, kritische Ausgabe, Leipzig, 1924) has tried to restore the original text of this Upaniṣad. Its connection with the Atharvaveda (X, 7 and 8) has been pointed out by Hertel, l. c., pp. 45 ff. The title probably means "the Upaniṣad of the bald-headed," that is, of some sect of ascetics with shaven heads. Hertel (l. c., pp. 64 ff.) suggests some connection between the Muṇḍ.-Up., and the Jainas.

v1.c8.s8.45

⁵ In this Upaniṣad the sage Pippalāda, the founder of the Paippalāda school of the Atharvaveda, appears as teacher. On text criticism s. *Hillebrandt*, ZDMG., 68, 1914, 581 f.

v1.c8.s8.46

¹ Cf. R. Zimmermann, Die Quellen der Mahā-nārāyaṇa-Upaniṣad und das Verhältnis der verschiedenen Rezensionen zu einander, Diss., Berlin, 1913, and Ind. Ant., 44, 1915, 130 ff., 177 ff.; Barth., RHR. 19, 1889, 150 f. = Oeuvres, II, 23. Edition by G. A. Jacob. BSS Nr. 35, 1888.

v1.c8.s8.47

The Maitrāyaṇīya-Upaniṣad,² which, by reason of its title, is attributed to a school of the Black Yajurveda,³ belongs to a considerably later period which must have been post-Buddhistic. It is again written in *prose*, like the earliest Upaniṣads. This prose, however, no longer shows any Vedic traces. On the grounds of language, style and contents, we may place the work in the period of classical Sanskrit literature. The Māṇḍūkya-Upaniṣad⁴ of the Atharvaveda probably also belongs to this same later period. Śaṅkara, who quotes the twelve Upaniṣads previously enumerated as sacred and authoritative texts in his commentary on the Brahmasūtras, mentions neither the Maitrāyaṇīya- nor the Māṇḍūkya-Upaniṣad.¹

v1.c8.s8.48

² Other titles are: Maitrāyaṇa-Brāhmaṇa-Up., Maitrāyaṇa-Up., Maitrāyaṇī-Up., and Maitrī-Up., s. Max Müller, SBE., Vol. 15, pp. xliii ff. There are several recensions of the text. The text (ed., with the commentary of Rāmatīrtha, by E. B. Cowell, 2nd ed. revised by Satischandra Vidyabhusan, Bibl. Ind, 1913 ff.) which has hitherto been translated consists of 7 Prapāṭhakas. But the two last Prapāṭhakas (declared to be supplementary by Deussen, Sechzig Upanishads, p. 330) are missing in the edition of Mahadeva Sastri (Sāmānya Vedanta Upanishads, pp. 388 ff.), where Prap., IV, 5 corresponds to the 5th Prapāṭhaka of the older editions. A different work is the metrical Maitreya-Upaniṣad (Minor Upaniṣads, ed. Schrader, I, pp. 105 ff.), which only in the prose introduction partly agrees with our Maitrāy.-Up.

v1.c8.s8.49

³ In some MSS. it is given as part of the Maitrāyaṇīya-Saṃhitā.

v1.c8.s8.50

⁴ On this Upaniṣad s. H. Baynes, Ind. Ant., 26, 1897, 169 ff. The Gauḍapādīya-Kārikās, one of the most important works of Indian philosophy, is based on the Māṇḍ.-Up. Pandit Vidhusekhara Bhattacharya (Sir Asutosh Mukherjee Silver Jubilee Volume, pp 103 ff.) has proved that Śaṅkara is not the author of the commentary ascribed to him on this Up. The same learned Pandit thinks, as he writes to me (in a letter dated 27th August, 1924) and as he intends to prove, that the Māṇḍūkya-Up. is later than Gauḍapāda's Kārikās. and was even unknown to Śaṅkara.

v1.c8.s8.51

¹ *Cf.* Deussen, System des Vedanta, pp. 32 f., on the Upaniṣads quoted by Śaṅkara. As regards the chronological order of the fourteen Vedic Upaniṣads, absolute certainty cannot be obtained. Keith (The Aitareya Āraṇyaka, pp. 45 ff.) has tried to prove that the Aitareya-Upaniṣad is the oldest, dating back to about 700-600 B.C. Others consider the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Up. to be the oldest. S. Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy, I, pp. 141 f., says that "the accepted dates for the early Upaniṣāds are 1000 B.C. to 300 B.C." By whom are these dates "accepted"? *Cf.* Deussen in Transactions of the 3rd International Congress for the History of Religion, Oxford, 1908, II, pp. 19 ff.; Oldenberg, Die Lehre der Upanishaden, pp. 288 f., 341; Hillebrandt, Aus Brahmanas und Upanisaden, p. 170. Benimadhab Barua, A History of Pre-Buddhistic Indian Philosophy, Calcutta, 1921) has made a remarkable and creditable, though not always successful, attempt at establishing a chronology of the philosophical ideas contained in the Upaniṣads, apart from the chronology of the literary works. But his designation of the philosophy of the Upaniṣads as "post-Vedic" (pp. 39 ff.) is very confusing.

v1.c8.s8.52

Though the two last-named texts must be among the latest offshoots of Vedic literature, they too may still be classed together with the twelve earlier texts as *Vedic Upaniṣads*; and these fourteen Upaniṣads only can be used as sources for the history of the earliest Indian philosophy.

v1.c8.s8.53

Though the remaining Upaniṣads—and there are over 200 texts which have come down to us either independently as Upaniṣads or in larger collections—are also attributed by tradition to one or other of the Vedic schools, only a few of them have any real connection with the Veda. Most of them are religious rather than philosophical works, and contain the doctrines and views of schools of philosophers and religious sects of a much later period. Many of them are much more nearly related to the Purāṇas and Tantras chronologically as well as in content, than to the Veda. This latest Upaniṣad literature may be classified as follows, according to its purpose and contents: (1) those works which present Vedānta doctrines,² (2) those which teach Yoga,¹ (3) those which extol the ascetic life (sannyāsa),² (4) those which glorify Viṣṇu,³ and (5) those which glorify Śiva as the highest divinity, and (6) Upaniṣads of the Śāktas and of other more insignificant sects.⁴ These Upaniṣads are written partly in prose, partly in a mixture of prose and verse, and partly in epic Ślokas. Whilst the latter are on the same chronological level as the latest Purāṇas and Tantras, there are some works among the former which may be of greater antiquity, and which might consequently still be associated with the Veda.) (The following are probably examples of such earlier Upaniṣads: the Jābāla-Upaniṣad⁵) which is quoted by Śaṅkara as an authority, and which closes with a beautiful description of the ascetic named Paramahaṃsa; (the Paramahaṃsa-Upaniṣad,⁶) describing the path of the Paramahaṃsa still more vividly; the very extensive (Subāla-Upaniṣad,⁷) often quoted by Rāmānuja, and dealing with cosmogony, physiology, psychology and metaphysics;

v1.c8.s8.54

² The Sāmānya Vedānta Upanishads with the commentary of Sri Upanishad-Brahma-Yogin, ed. by Pandit A. Mahadeva Sastri. Adyar Library (Theosophical Society), 1921.

v1.c8.s8.55

¹ The Yoga Upanishads with the Commentary of Sri Upanishad-Brahma-Yogin, ed. by A. Mahadeva Sastri, Adyar, 1920. The Cūlikā-Up., and Amṛtanāda-Up. have been edited and translated into German by A. Weber, Ind. Stud., 9, pp. 10ff., 23 ff.

v1.c8.s8.56

² The Minor Upaniṣads critically edited by F. Otto Schrader, Vol. I: Saṃnyāsa-Upaniṣads, The Adyar Library, Madras, S. 1912. The Mṛtyulāṅgala-Up. (ed. by A.C. Burnell, Ind. Ant., 2, 1873, pp 265 f.) is a purely Tantric work.

v1.c8.s8.57

³ The Vaishnava-Upanishads with the Commentary of Sri Upanishad-Brahma-Yogin, ed. by A. Mahadeva Sastri, Adyar 1923. The Rāma-Tāpanīya-Upaniṣad, text and German translation by A. Weber, ABA., 1864, pp. 271 ff.; the Nṛsiṃha-Tāpanīya-Up. by the same scholar, Ind. Stud., 9, 53 173. On Niralamba-Up. and Garuḍa,Up. s. Weber, Ind. Stud, 8, 324 ff.; 17, 36 ff, 161 ff.

v1.c8.s8.58

⁴ Edition of the Śaiva and Śākta Upaniṣads by Pandit Mahadeva Sastri of the Adyar Library are in preparation. This classification of the non-Vedic Upaniṣads was first proposed by Deussen, Sechzig Upanishads, pp. 542 f., and then adopted by F. O. Schrader. Minor Upaniṣads, pp ii f. in an amplified form. It is useful for practical purposes, though not always strictly applicable. For some Upaniṣads teach brahmavidyā by means of Yoga, and might be classified as well with the Vedānta as with the Yoga Upaniṣads; and some Yoga Upaniṣads might as well be classified as Vaiṣṇava, etc.

v1.c8.s8.59

⁵ Minor Upaniṣads, ed. F. O. Schrader, I, pp. 57 ff. Deussen, Sechzig Upanishads, pp. 706 ff.

v1.c8.s8.60

⁶ Minor Upaniṣads, I. pp. 43 ff.; Deussen, l. c., pp. 703 ff.

v1.c8.s8.61

⁷ Sāmānya Vedānta Upanishads, ed. Mahadeva Sastri, pp. 460 ff.

v1.c8.s8.62

the Garbha-Upaniṣad,¹) part of which reads like a treatise on embryology, but which is obviously a meditation on the embryo with the aim of preventing rebirth in a new womb; and the Śivaite Atharvaśiras-Upaniṣad,²) which is already mentioned in the Dharmasūtras³ as a sacred text, and by virtue of which sins can be washed away. (The Vajrasūcikā-Upaniṣad,⁴) which teaches that only he who knows the Brahman as the One without a second, is a Brahmin, is not of very late origin. Another factor which makes it difficult to determine the date of these Upaniṣads is the fact that they are often to be found in various recensions of very uneven bulk.⁵)

v1.c8.s8.63

¹ Sāmānya Vedānta Upanishads, pp. 168 ff.; *Deussen*, Sechzig Upanishads, pp. 605 ff.

v1.c8.s8.64

² *Deussen*, l. c., pp. 716 ff. See also *Bhandarkar*, Vaiṣṇavism, Śaivism, etc., pp. 111 f.

v1.c8.s8.65

³ Gautama XIX, 12; Baudhāyana, III, 10, 10; Vāsiṣṭha, XXII, 9; XXVIII, 14; Viṣṇu, 56, 22.

v1.c8.s8.66

⁴ Sāmānya Vedānta Upanishads, p. 416 ff. In some MSS. this Upaniṣad is ascribed to Śaṅkara. One version of it, expanded into an attack on the caste system, is ascribed to the Buddhist poet Aśvaghoṣa. Cf. A. *Weber*, ABA. 1859, 259 ff.

v1.c8.s8.67

⁵ Thus *Deussen*, Sechzig Upanishads, pp. 743 ff., translates a Mahā-Upaniṣad which is so short, that it does not deserve its name "*the Great Upaniṣad*" at all, while in the South-Indian recension (Sāmānya Vedānta Upanishads, pp. 234 ff.) it is indeed one of the longest Upaniṣads.

v1.c8.s8.68

These non-*Vedic Upaniṣads*, as we may call them, have come down in large collections⁶) which are not ancient as such.) For the philosopher Śaṅkara (about 800 A.D.) still quotes the Upaniṣads as parts of the Veda texts to which they belong; and even Rāmānuja (about 1100 A.D.) speaks of the "Chandogas," the "Vājasaneyins" or the "Kauṣītakins" when quoting the Upaniṣads of the schools in question: the Subāla-Upaniṣad is the only one which he quotes by this title. In the Muktikā-Upaniṣad, which is certainly one of the latest, we read that salvation may be attained by the study of the 108 Upaniṣads, and a list of 108 Upaniṣads is set forth, classified according to the four Vedas: 10 Upaniṣads coming under the Ṛgveda, 19 under the White Yajurveda, 32 under the Black Yajurveda, 16 under the Sāmaveda and 31 under the Atharvaveda. This classification, however, can scarcely be based on an ancient tradition.¹ (All these Upaniṣads which are, properly speaking, non-Vedic, are generally called "Upaniṣads of the Atharvaveda.") They were associated with the Atharvaveda, because the authority of this Veda as sacred tradition was always dubious and it was therefore no difficult matter to associate all kinds of apocryphal texts with the literature belonging to the Atharvaveda. Furthermore, the Atharvaveda, as we have seen, was above all the Veda of magic and the secretiveness connected with it.¹ The real meaning of "Upaniṣad"—and this meaning has never been forgotten—was "secret doctrine." What was more natural than that a large class of works which were regarded as Upaniṣads or secret doctrines, should be joined to the Atharvaveda, which itself was indeed nothing but a collection of secret doctrines!

v1.c8.s8.69

⁶ The collection translated into Persian in 1656, called Oupnek’hat (s. above, p. 19) contains 50 Upaniṣads. An analysis of these Upaniṣads from Duperron's Latin translation has been given by A. *Weber*, Ind. Stud., Vols. 1, 2 and 9. On a list of 52 Upaniṣads of the Atharvaveda s *Colebrooke*, Misc. Essays, I, pp. 93 ff., and *Bhandarkar*, Report, 1883-84, pp. 24 f. For another list s. *Weber*, HSS., Verz., p. 95. Editions: Eleven Ātharvaṇa-Upanishads, ed. by G. A. *Jacob*, BSS. Nr. 40, 1891. At the NSP., Bombay, a collection of 108 Upaniṣads has been published in 1913, one of 112 Upaniṣads in 1917, one of 28 Upaniṣads in 1918, the eleven (principal) Upaniṣads (Ekādaśopaniṣadaḥ), with commentaries, by Swami Achintya Bhagawan, ib. 1910. The most important Upaniṣads have been edited, with Śaṅkara's commentaries, in the Bibl. Ind. and in ĀnSS., Nos. 5-17, 29-31, 62-64. Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Up. and Chāndogya-Up. have been critically edited and translated into German by O. *Böhtlingk*, St. Petersburg and Leipzig, 1889, the Katha-, Aitareya-, and Praśna-Up. by the same scholar in BSGW., 1890, and critical notes on these Upaniṣads by the same scholar in BSGW., 1891. Kena-Up. with comm. ed. by Śrīdhara-śāstrī Pāṭhaka, Poona, 1919. Translations: (Twelve principal) Upaniṣads translated by *Max Müller*, SBE., Vols. 1 and 15. The Thirteen Principal Upanishads translated by *R. E. Hume*, Oxford, 1921. Sechzig Upanishads des Veda übersetzt von *P. Deussen*, Leipzig, 1897. Selections in German translation by *A. Hillebrandt*, Aus Brāhmaṇas und Upaniṣaden, Jena, 1921, and *J. Hertel*, Die Weisheit der Upanischaden, München, 1921. Translations of Īśā-, Kena-, and Muṇḍaka-, and of Kaṭha- and Praśna-Up. with Śaṅkara's commentary by *S. Sitaram Sastri*, Madras, 1898; the Chāndogya-Up. with Śaṅkara's Comm. translated by *Ganganath Jhā*, Madras, 1899; Aitareya-Up. with Śaṅkara's Comm. transl. by *H. M. Bhadkamkar*, Bombay, 1899. Amritabindu and Kaivalya-Upanishads with Comm. transl. by *A. Mahadeva Sastri*; 2nd ed., Madras, 1921. The principal Upaniṣads with Madhva's commentary transl. by *Rai Bahadur Srīśa Chandra Vidyārṇava*, Īśā and Kena according to Śaṅkara by the same, and Śvetāśvatara transl. by *Siddheśvari Prasad Varmā Sāstri* appeared in the Sacred Books of the Hindus, Panini Office, Allahabad. A useful help for the study of the Upaniṣads is *G. A. Jacob's* Concordance, BSS., 1891. A selected and classified bibliography of the Upaniṣads is given by *R. E. Hume*, *l. c.*, pp. 459 ff.

v1.c8.s8.70

¹ Rāmānuja quotes the Garbha-Up. and the Mantrikā- (=Cūlikā-) Up. as Atharvaveda-Upaniṣads, although the list in the Muktikā-Up. counts the one as belonging to the Black, and the other to the White Yajurveda.

v1.c8.s8.71

¹ See above, p. 149 f.

v1.c8.s8.72

The word "*Upaniṣad*" is, in fact, derived from the verb "*upa-ni-sad*," "to sit down near some one," and it originally meant the sitting down of the pupil near the teacher for the purpose of a confidential communication, therefore a "confidential" or "secret session." Out of this idea of the "secret session," the meaning "*secret* doctrine" that which is communicated at such a confidential session—was developed.² The Indians generally give as a synonym of the word "*upaniṣad*" the word "*rahasyam*," which means "mystery, secret." In the Upaniṣad texts themselves the expressions "*iti rahasyam*" and "*iti upaniṣad*"

v1.c8.s8.73

² See Deussen, AGPh. I, 2, pp 14 ff., with whom I fully agree in rejecting Oldenberg's explanation of *Upaniṣad* (ZDMG. 50, 1896, 458 ff.; 54, 1990, 70 ff.; Die Lehre der Upanishaden, etc., pp. 36 f., 155 ff, 348 f.) as "a form of worship." *Upaniṣad* is used frequently enough as a synonym of *rahasyam*, but never synonymous with *upāsanā*. Besides, E. Senart (Florilegium Melchior de Vogüé, Paris, 1909, pp. 575 ff.) has shown that even the verb *upās* in the Upaniṣads does not mean "to worship," but "to have a profound knowledge, to know or to believe for certain." But even his translation of *upaniṣad* by "knowledge, belief" ("connaissance, croyance") does not hit the meaning of the word as well as "secret doctrine." M. R. Bodas (JBRAS., 22, pp. 69 f.) takes the original meaning of *upaniṣad* to be "sitting down near the sacrificial fire," as the conversations contained in the Upaniṣads are said to have taken place at the great sacrifices. This is not more probable than the explanation of J. W. Hauer (Anfänge der Yoga-praxis, p. 27), who gives "mysterious wisdom obtained by Tapas and meditation" as the original meaning of *upaniṣad*, connecting it with the quiet sitting as part of the Yoga practice. Nārāyaṇa in his commentary on Manu, VI, 29, defines upaniṣad as "that which is recited seated near," *i.e.* "(a text) which is recited (while the pupils are) seated near (the teacher)"; *s.* Bühler. SBE., Vol. 25, pp. 203 n. *Cf.* also Macdonell and Keith, Vedic Index, I, pp. 91 f.

v1.c8.s8.74

are frequently used side by side in the sense of "thus says the secret doctrine.") Often enough we find in the Upaniṣads themselves the warning against communicating some doctrine to an unworthy one. "This doctrine of Brahman," it is said for example,¹ "may a father impart to his eldest son or to a trusted pupil, but not to another, whoever he may be, even if the latter should give him the whole earth, surrounded by the waters and filled with treasures." Very frequently it is also related in the Upaniṣads how a teacher is entreated to communicate some knowledge or other, but only after repeated entreaty and urging of the pupil, gives way and reveals his doctrine to him.²

v1.c8.s8.75

¹ Chāndogya-Upaniṣad, III, 11, 5 f. *Cf.* Deussen, *loc. cit.*, pp. 12 f.

v1.c8.s8.76

² The word *upaniṣad* occurs in the Upaniṣads themselves in three senses; it means:—(1) "mystic sense," *e g.*, the secret significance of the syllable Om; (2) "secret word," certain expressions and formulæ which are intelligible only to the initiated, as *tajjalan*, "in him growing, passing away, breathing," or *satyasya satyam*, "the truth of truth," as designation of the highest being; (3) "secret text," *i.e.*, "esoteric doctrine" and "secret knowledge," *cf.* Deussen, *loc. cit.*, pp. 16 f. [^3): According to Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra, I, 13, 1, certain rites connected with conception, procreation of male children, etc., are taught in an "Upaniṣad." The charm in Ṛv. I, 191 is called an "Upaniṣad" by Kātyāyana in his Sarvānukramaṇikā. In the manual of politics (Kauṭilīya-Arthaśāstra, XIV) all kinds of magic rites for the purpose of arson, assassination, blinding, etc., and in the manuals of erotics all sorts of secret prescriptions relating to sexual intercourse and to cosmetics are taught in an "Upaniṣadic chapter" (s. Kauṭilīya-Arthaśāstra, XIV; Vātsyāyana's Kāmasūtra, VII; and R. *Schmidt*, Beiträge zur indischen Erotik, Leipzig 1902, pp. 817 ff.). Rāmānuja (on Brahmasūtra II, 2, 43, s. SBE.; Vol. 48, p. 528) calls the Pāñcarātraśāstra "a great Upaniṣad."

v1.c8.s8.77

(According to this original meaning of the word "*Upaniṣad*," the oldest Upaniṣads already contain very heterogeneous matters.) An Upaniṣad was above all else a "mystery," and every doctrine which was not intended for the masses, but was only communicated within a narrow circle of privileged persons—be it a profound philosophical doctrine or some futile symbolism or allegory, a symbolical sacrifice serving as magic, puzzled out by a Brahman, or some would-be wisdom serving as a magic formula—was called Upaniṣad. All this we actually find already in the *old* Upaniṣads side by side and jumbled up but particularly so in the so-called "Atharvaveda-Upaniṣads."[^3)

v1.c8.s8.78

Thus the *Kauṣītaki-Upaniṣad* contains, besides psychological and metaphysical expositions and a detailed eschatology,¹ also descriptions of sacrificial rites, by which one can attain some good or other, or effect a love charm, ceremonies for the prevention of the death of children, and even an "Upaniṣad," *i.e.*, a secret doctrine, the knowledge of which serves as magic for the annihilation of enemies. Similarly the *Chāndogya-Upaniṣad* contains deep philosophical thoughts upon the creation, the universe and the soul, but among these also mystical speculations upon the syllable Om, secret rites for the healing of diseases and so on. In the Atharvaveda-Upaniṣads, indeed, we find for instance a whole Upaniṣad—"the *Garuḍa-Upaniṣad*,"²—which is nothing but a snake charm that might just as well be included in the Atharvaveda-Saṁhitā.

v1.c8.s8.79

¹ On this chapter of the Kauṣītaki-Up. compared with another version of it in the Jaiminīya-Brāhmaṇa, s E. *Windisch*, BSGW., 1907, 111 ff.

v1.c8.s8.80

² *Deussen*, Sechzig Upanishads des Veda, pp 627 f.

v1.c8.s8.81

This should be borne in mind when a "philosophy of the Upaniṣads" or even a "system of the Upaniṣads" is spoken of. A philosophy of the Upaniṣads exists only in so far as, in these collections of all sorts of mysteries, the teachings of the philosophers were also included. (A system of the Upaniṣad philosophy can only be said to exist in a very restricted sense.³ For it is not the thoughts of one single philosopher or of one uniform *school* of philosophers, that might be traced back to one single teacher, which are before us in the Upaniṣads, but it is the teachings of various men,⁴ even of various periods, which are presented in the single sections of the Upaniṣads.)

v1.c8.s8.82

³ "That the Upaniṣads teach not one but various systems, must follow from the fact that they are compilations just as the Ṛgveda-Saṁhitā is, " *R. G. Bhandarkar*, Vaiṣṇavism, Śaivism, etc., p. 1. Cf. G. *Thibaut*, SBE, Vol. 34, pp. ci ff.

v1.c8.s8.83

⁴ How far the persons mentioned by name in the Upaniṣads, such as Yājñavalkya, Śāṇḍilya, Bālāki, Śvetaketu and others, were really the teachers of the doctrines ascribed to them (as *Barua* in his "Pre-Buddhistic Indian Philosophy" takes them to be), is not quite certain. Yājñavalkya is said to be the author of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Up., as of the whole White Yajurveda (s. Bṛh.-Up., VI, 5, 3 and Yājñavalkya-Smṛti III, 110); but in the Bṛh.-Up. itself other teachers also are mentioned. Besides, so many different doctrines both of ritual and of metaphysics are ascribed to Yājñavalkya, that it seems difficult to credit him with all of them. On the other hand it is quite possible that Śāṇḍilya for instance was really the teacher of the famous doctrine ascribed to him.

v1.c8.s8.84

There are, it is true, a few *fundamental doctrines*, which lend an appearance of uniformity to the philosophical thoughts which stand out in the genuine Upaniṣads, and it is only of these that we wish to speak here: with respect to these fundamental doctrines alone is it possible to speak (as Deussen does)—though always with reserve—of a "system of the Upaniṣads." We must therefore not seek deep wisdom in every chapter of the Upaniṣads, or expect a Platonic dialogue in every Upaniṣad. It is indeed remarkable enough that in the very oldest and most beautiful portions of the Upaniṣads we find the same form of *dialogue* as in the works of the great Greek philosopher.¹ And just as Plato's dialogues reveal to us a wonderfully life-like picture of the life and doings of the Ancient Greeks, so the dialogues of the older Upaniṣads frequently afford us a surprising insight into life at the ancient Indian princely courts, where priests and famous wandering teachers, including learned women, flocked together, in order to hold their disputations before the king, who not infrequently entered into the theological and philosophical conversations and confounded the learned Brahmans by his knowledge; as well as insight into the school-life of those ancient times, when travelling scholars undertook long journeys in order to "hear" some famous teacher, to whom pupils came from all sides "as waters precipitate themselves into the abyss and months sink into the year."¹) But besides sections of deep philosophical content, and portions which very well bear comparison with Plato's dialogues, we also find in the Upaniṣads much that is inferior as philosophy or literature.

v1.c8.s8.85

¹ On the dialogues of the Upaniṣads, cf. *Oldenberg*, Die Lehre der Upanishaden, pp. 160 ff.

v1.c8.s8.86

¹ Taittirīya-Upaniṣad, I, 3.

Linked texts (55)