Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Philosophy of the Upanishads c6: II. Brief Summary of the History of the Upanishads

The Philosophy of the Upanishads c6

Language
English

Contents

II. Brief Summary of the History of the Upanishads

1. The earliest Origin of the Upanishads

c6.s1.1

The word *Upanishad* occurs with three distinct meanings as—

c6.s1.2

(1) Secret word.
(2) Secret text.
(3) Secret import.

c6.s1.3

(1) Certain mysterious words, expressions, and formulas, which are only intelligible to the initiated, are described as *Upanishad*. These contain either a secret rule for action and behaviour, as the *na yâc'et* of Kaush. 2. 1, 2, quoted above, or secret information on the nature of Brahman. When, then, the latter is described as *satyasya satyam*¹, or *tad-vanam*² (the final goal of aspiration), there is added, “thou hast been taught the Upanishad.” Of a similar nature are secret words like *tajjalân*³ “in him (all beings) are born, perish, and breathe,” or *neti neti*⁴. And when the worship of Brahman under such formulas is enjoined, it is not implied that *upanishad* signifies “worship,” but only, as already pointed out, that meditation on Brahman under these mysterious terms must take the place of the worship of the gods.

c6.s1.4

¹ Bṛih. 2. 1. 20, 2. 3. 6.

c6.s1.5

² Kena 31 (4. 6).

c6.s1.6

³ Chând. 3. 14. 1.

c6.s1.7

⁴ Bṛih. 2. 3. 6, and often.

c6.s1.8

(2) The extant texts themselves, as well as the older texts underlying them, are called Upanishads. Accordingly in the Taittirîyaka school especially a section often ends with the words,—*iti upanishad*.

c6.s1.9

(3) Very frequently it is not a word or a text, but the secret allegorical meaning of some ritual conception or practice, which is described as *upanishad*; *e.g.* in Chând. 1. 1. 10,—“for that which is executed with knowledge, with faith, with the upanishad (knowledge of the secret meaning of Udgîtha as *Om*), that is more effective.”

c6.s1.10

The question suggests itself, which of these three significations is the original. We might decide for the third, and suppose that an allegorical interpretation was assigned to the ritual, and the Upanishad doctrine developed thence. This, however, apparently was not the case, and there is much to be said for the view that, as already observed above, the conceptions of the Upanishads, though they may have originated with the Brâhmans, were fostered primarily among the Kshatriyas and not within Brâhman circles, engrossed as these were with the ritual.

c6.s1.11

The Upanishads have come down to us, like the rest of the texts of the three older Vedas, through the Brâhmans. All the more striking is it, therefore, that the texts themselves frequently trace back some of their most important doctrines to kings, *i.e.* Kshatriyas. Thus, in the narrative of Chând. 5. 11-24, five learned Brâhmans request from Uddâlaka Âruṇi instruction concerning the Âtman Vais’vânara. Uddâlaka distrusts his ability to explain everything to them, and all the six therefore betake themselves to the king As’vapati Kaikeya, and receive from him the true instruction, the defectiveness of their own knowledge having first been made clear. In Bṛih. 2. 1 (and the parallel passage, Kaush. 4), the far-famed Vedic scholar Gârgya Bâlâki volunteers to expound the Brahman to King Ajâtas’atru of Kâs’î, and propounds accordingly twelve (in Kaush. 16) erroneous explanations; whereupon to him, the Brâhman, the king exhibits the Brahman as the âtman under the figure of a deep sleeper, prefacing his exposition with the remark, “that is a reversal of the rule, for a Brâhman to betake himself as a pupil to a Kshatriya in order to have the Brahman expounded to him; now I proceed to instruct you.” In this narrative, preserved by two different Vedic schools, it is expressly declared that the knowledge of the Brahman as âtman, the central doctrine of the entire Vedânta, is possessed by the king; but, on the contrary, is not possessed by the Brâhman “famed as a Vedic scholar.”¹ In Chând. 1. 8–9, two Brâhmans are instructed by the king Pravâhaṇa Jaivali concerning the âkâśa as the ultimate substratum of all things, of which they are ignorant. And although it is said in Chând. 1. 9. 3 that this instruction had been previously imparted by Atidhanvan to Udarasâṇḍilya, yet the names allow of the conjecture that in this case also a Brâhman received instruction from a Kshatriya. Similarly Chând. 7 contains the teaching given by Sanatkumâra, the god of war, to the Brâhman Nârada. Here the former pronounces inadequate the comprehensive Vedic learning of the Brâhman with the words: “all that you have studied is merely name.”² Finally the leading text of the doctrine of the soul’s transmigration, which is extant in three different recensions,³ is propounded in the form of an instruction given to Âruṇi by the king Pravâhaṇa Jaivali.⁴ The king here says to the Brâhman :—“Because, as you have told me, O Gautama, this doctrine has never up to the present time been in circulation among Brâhmans, therefore in all the worlds the government has remained in the hands of the warrior caste.”⁵

c6.s1.12

¹ Kaush., l.c.

c6.s1.13

² Chând. 7. 1. 3.

c6.s1.14

³ Chând. 5. 3–10, Bṛih. 5. 2, and with considerable variations Kaush. 1.

c6.s1.15

⁴ In Kaush., l.c., by C’itra Gângyâyana.

c6.s1.16

⁵ Chând. 5. 3. 7 ; in Bṛih. 6. 2. 8 the words are :—“As surely as I wish that you, like your ancestors, may remain well-disposed to us, so surely up to the present day this knowledge has never been in the possession of a Brâhman.”

c6.s1.17

When we consider that the passages quoted discuss such subjects as the knowledge of Brahman as âtman,⁶ the knowledge of this âtman as the all-quickener,⁷ and the fate of the soul after death,¹ that is, precisely the most important points of Upanishad teaching; that not only is the king represented in them as endowed with wisdom, but is expressly contrasted with the Brâhman who is ignorant or deluded; and that these narratives are preserved to us by the Vedic S'âkhâs, and therefore by the Brâhmans themselves; we are forced to conclude, if not with absolute certainty, yet with a very high degree of probability, that as a matter of fact the doctrine of the âtman, standing as it did in such sharp contrast to all the principles of the Vedic ritual, though the original conception may have been due to Brâhmans, was taken up and cultivated primarily not in Brâhman but in Kshatriya circles, and was first adopted by the former in later times. The fact, moreover, which is especially prominent in the last quoted passages, that the Brâhmans during a long period had not attained to the possession of this knowledge, for which they nevertheless display great eagerness, is most simply explained on the supposition that this teaching with regard to the âtman was studiously withheld from them; that it was transmitted in a narrow circle among the Kshatriyas to the exclusion of the Brâhmans; that, in a word, it was upanishad. The allegorical method of interpreting the ritual in the light of the âtman doctrine, though it may have been already practised among the Kshatriya circles, was probably undertaken on a larger scale after the adoption of the new doctrine by the Brâhmans. It would follow that the third of the above-mentioned meanings of the word upanishad as "secret import" (of some ritual conception) is probably in the first instance secondary. If we ask further, which of the two other meanings, (1) secret word, (2) secret text, is the more primitive, it would seem that a transition from the second to the first is with difficulty intelligible.

c6.s1.18

⁶ Bṛih. 2. 1, Kaush. 4.

c6.s1.19

⁷ Chând. 5. 11 f.

c6.s1.20

¹ Chând. 5. 3 f., Bṛih. 6. 2.

c6.s1.21

but that the first passes into the second by a natural and readily comprehended change.

c6.s1.22

We may therefore assume that the doctrine of the âtman as the first principle of the universe, the gradual rise of which we have traced through the hymns of the Ṛigveda and Atharvaveda, was fostered and progressively developed by the Kshatriyas in opposition to the principles of the Brâhmanical ritual; whence the new knowledge was expressed in brief words or formulas, intelligible only to the initiated, such as tadvanam, tajjalân, satyasya satyam, samyadvâma, vâmaní, bhâmaní, etc. A formula of this kind was then called an upanishad, inasmuch as the condition of its communication and explanation was the absence of publicity. Such formulas were naturally accompanied by oral explanations, which also were kept secret, and from these were gradually developed the earliest texts that bore the name of Upanishad. The manner in which the formulas tad vai tad¹ or vi-ram² are discussed may serve as examples of such secret words accompanied by secret explanation.³

c6.s1.23

¹ Bṛih. 5. 4.

c6.s1.24

² Bṛih. 5. 12.

c6.s1.25

³ The explanations given of these secret words are not always in agreement. The definition of Brahman as pûrṇam apravarti is approved in Chând. 3. 12. 7, but in Bṛih. 2. 1. 5 (Kaush. 4. 8) is regarded, on the contrary, as inadmissible. Of still greater interest is the case of the Upanishad Bṛih. 16. 3, amṛitam satyena c'hannam, understood by others as anṛitam satyena c'hannam; so also Bṛih. 5. 5. 1 (anṛitam ubhayataḥ satyena parigṛihitam), which again is otherwise explained in Chând. 8. 3. 5. Similarly the saying of the ancient ṛishis, pâṅktam idam sarvam, is differently construed in Bṛih. 1. 4. 17 and Taitt. 1. 7.

c6.s1.26

In these and similar ways the secret doctrines, *i.e.* the vidyâs, arose, of which mention is so frequently made in the Upanishads. Their authors or exclusive possessors were renowned in the land. Pilgrims sought them, pupils served them for many years,⁴ and rich gifts were offered to them⁵ in order thereby to gain the communication of the *vidyâ*. In the case of some of these *vidyâs* the name of the author is preserved. Several of them, in fact, are equipped with a formal genealogy, which recounts the original author and his successors, and usually closes with the injunction to communicate the doctrine only to a son or trusted pupil.

c6.s1.27

⁴ Chând. 4. 10. 2.

c6.s1.28

⁵ Chând. 4. 2. 1.

c6.s1.29

A suitable field, however, for the successful development of these doctrines was first opened up when they passed from the Kshatriya circles, where they had originally found a home, by ways that a few illustrations have already taught us to recognise, into the possession of the Brâhmans, whose system of scholastic traditions was firmly established. The latter eagerly adopted the âtman doctrine, although it was fundamentally opposed to the Vedic cult of the gods and the Brâhmanical system of ritual, combined it by the help of allegorical interpretation with the ritualistic tradition, and attached it to the curriculum of their schools. The Upanishads became the Vedânta.

c6.s1.30

Soon also the Brâhmans laid claim to the new teaching as their exclusive privilege. They were able to point to princes and leaders, as Janaka, Jânas'ruti, etc., who were said to have gone for instruction to Brâhmans. Authorities on the ritual like S'ânḍilya and Yâjñavalkhya were transformed into originators and upholders of the ideas of the Upanishads, and the âtman doctrine was made to presuppose the tradition of the Veda :—" Only he who knows the Veda comprehends the great omnipresent Âtman," as it is said in a passage of the Brâhmaṇas.¹

c6.s1.31

¹ Taitt. Br. 3. 12. 9. 7.

c6.s1.32

After the Upanishad ideas had been adopted by the S'âkhâs, and had been made a part of their Vedic system of instruction, they passed through a varied expansion and development under the hands of the Vedic teachers. To begin with they were brought into accord with the ritual tradition by interpreting the latter (in the Âranyakas) in the spirit of the âtman doctrine; and thus the adherents of the Rigveda brought it into connection with the uktham (hymn), those of the Sâmaveda with the sâman, and those of the Yajurveda with the sacrifice, especially the horse-sacrifice as being its highest form. The new doctrine, however, was further developed in a manner which altogether transcended the traditional cult, with which, indeed, it often found itself in open contradiction. In regard to this an active communication and exchange must have existed between the different schools. Definitions which by the one were highly regarded failed to meet with acceptance in another. Teachers who in the one S'âkhâ exercised supreme authority are found in another in a subordinate position (Âruṇi), or are altogether unknown (Yâjñavalkhya). Texts appear with slight variations in the different Vedic schools, whether borrowed directly or going back on either side to a common original. Other texts are met with side by side in one and the same S'âkhâ in numerous recensions, often very similar, often widely divergent from one another. This rich mental life, the details of which can scarcely be further reproduced, may not improbably have lasted for centuries; and the fundamental thought of the doctrine of the âtman have attained an ever completer development by means of the reflection of individual thinkers in familiar intercourse before a chosen circle of pupils, and probably also by public discussions at royal courts. The oldest Upanishads preserved to us are to be regarded as the final result of this mental process.

2. The extant Upanishads

c6.s2.1

Owing to the manner in which the Upanishads have arisen from the activity of the different Vedic schools and their intercourse one with another, we are unable to lay down any precise chronological order of succession among them. All the principal Upanishads contain earlier and later elements side by side, and therefore the age of each separate piece must be determined by itself as far as this is possible from the degree of development of the thoughts which find expression in it. Here, where we still treat of the Upanishads as a whole, we can only attempt a rough and approximate determination of the period to which in general an Upanishad belongs.

c6.s2.2

We distinguish first four successive periods of time, to which the Upanishads as a whole may be assigned.

c6.s2.3

I. THE ANCIENT PROSE UPANISHADS.— Bṛihadâraṇyaka and Chândogya. Taittirîya. Aitareya. Kaushîtaki. Kena.

c6.s2.4

The last-named stands on the border-line.

c6.s2.5

These are collectively the Vedânta texts of the actually existing S'âkhâs, and in their earlier parts are usually closely interwoven with Brâhmaṇas and Âraṇyakas, of which they form the continuation, and whose ritualistic conceptions are interpreted by them in various allegorical ways. It is only the later, and as we may suppose younger texts which emancipate themselves from the ritual. The language is still almost entirely the ancient prose of the Brâhmaṇas, somewhat ponderous stilted and awkward, but not without natural charm. The order adopted above is in general chronological. The Bṛihadâraṇyaka and Chândogya are not only the richest in contents, but also the oldest of the extant Upanishads. As compared also with one another, the Bṛihadâraṇyaka, as we shall often see, shows almost without exception greater originality in the grouping of the texts. On the other hand the literary outlook of Chând. 7. 1. 4 (7. 2. 1, 7. 7. 1) is materially broader than that of Bṛih. 2. 4. 10 (4. 1. 2, 4. 5. 11). *Taittirîya* in its essential part is still later than *Chân-dogya*; cp. Chând. 6. 2 (three elements) and Taitt. 2. 1 (five elements). *Aitareya* is later than *Chândogya* (in Chând. 6. 3. 1 there are three kinds of organic beings, in Ait. 3. 3 four), and than *Taittirîya* (cp. Taitt. 2. 6, "after that he had created it he entered into it," with the more elaborate description Ait. 1. 3. 12). *Kaushîtaki*, finally, is later than all those named; for Kaush. 1 is less original than Chând. 5. 3 f., Bṛih. 6. 2, and Kaush. 3 must be later than Ait. 3. 3, Kaush. 4 than Bṛih. 2. 1. *Kena* stands on the border-line of this period, and by virtue of its first metrical portion already belongs to the succeeding epoch.

c6.s2.6

II. THE METRICAL UPANISHADS.—The transition is made by *Kena* 1-13 and the verses Bṛih. 4. 4. 8-21, undoubtedly a later addition. There follow— Kâṭhaka Îśâ. Śvetâśvatara. Muṇḍaka. Mahânârâyaṇa.

c6.s2.7

The last-named makes use of *Muṇḍaka*, and *Muṇḍaka* appears to use *Śvetâśvatara*. *Îśâ* seems on the whole to be less fully developed than *Śvetâśvatara*, and to be freer from sectarian bias; but in numerous instances it is found to be dependent on *Kâṭhaka*.¹ That *Śvetâśvatara* is later than *Kâṭhaka* is not open to doubt; on the contrary, it is very probable, on the evidence of several passages,² that *Kâṭhaka* was directly employed in the composition of *Śvetâśvatara*.

c6.s2.8

¹ Cp. especially Îśâ 8 with Kâṭh. 5. 13.

c6.s2.9

² Collected in Deussen, *Upan.*, p. 289.

c6.s2.10

The difference between this period and the preceding is very great. The connection with the Śâkhâs appears sometimes doubtful, sometimes artificial, and in any case is loose. Allegories framed after the manner of the Âraṇyakas are wanting. The thought of the Upanishads is no longer apprehended as in course of development, but appears everywhere to have been taken over in its entirety. Individual verses and characteristic phrases constantly recur. The phraseology is already formed. And the language is almost throughout metrical.

c6.s2.11

III. THE LATER PROSE UPANISHADS.— Pras'na. Maitrâyaṇîya. Mâṇḍûkya.

c6.s2.12

In this third period the composition returns again to prose, but a prose which is markedly different from the archaic language of the ancient Upanishads, although it does also take on, especially in the *Maitrâyaṇîya*, an archaic colouring. The style suggests that of the later Sanskrit prose; it is complex, involved, and delights in repetitions. The dependence of the thought on that of the earlier Upanishads is made manifest by numerous quotations and adaptations. That *Pras'na* is later than *Muṇḍaka* is proved by the fact that the latter is quoted in Pr. 3. 5; it is older, however, than *Maitrâyaṇîya*, for it is itself quoted in Maitr. 6. 5. The position of *Mâṇḍûkya* is difficult to determine, owing to its brevity; yet the theory concerning Om in Mâṇḍ. 3 seems to be more advanced than that of Maitr. 6. 4. The greater number of the Upanishads hitherto mentioned have found admission, sometimes with very doubtful right, to a place in the three older Vedas. Only three of them—namely, Muṇḍaka, Pras'na, and Mâṇḍûkya—appear to have belonged from the beginning to the Atharvaveda, the two first-named certainly as the original legitimate Upanishads of this fourth Veda. These two are ascribed to S'aunaka and Pippalâda, the founders of the S'âkhâs of the Atharvaveda. The later collections of Atharva Upanishads begin as a rule with the Muṇḍaka and Pras'na, and these two alone can be proved to have been known to and employed by Bâdarâyaṇa and S'ankara.

c6.s2.13

IV. THE LATER ATHARVA UPANISHADS.—Later theological treatises retain still the form of Upanishads as a convenient method of literary composition that carries with it a degree of sanctity; while the thought concerns itself partly with the continuous development of older themes, or refrains from deviating from the beaten tracks (*Garbha, Prâṇâgnihotra, Piṇḍa, Âtma, Sarvopanishat-sâra, Gâruḍa*), partly turns its attention to the glorification of the Yoga (*Brahmavidyâ, Kshurikâ, C'ûlikâ, Nâdabindu, Brahmabindu, Amṛitabindu, Dhyânabindu, Tejobindu, Yogas'ikhâ, Yogatattva, Haṃsa*), or of the Sannyâsa (*Brahma, Sannyâsa, Âruṇeya, Kaṇthas'ruti, Paramahaṃsa, Jâbâla, Âs'rama*). The difference between the two tendencies shows itself also in the fact that almost without exception the Yoga Upanishads are composed in verse, those of the Sannyâsa in prose with occasional verses inserted. A further class of Upanishads is devoted to the worship of S'iva (*Atharvas'iras, Atharvas'ikhâ, Nîlarudra, Kâlâgnirudra, Kaivalya*), or of Vishnu (*Mahâ, Nârâyaṇa, Âtmabodha, Nṛisiṃhatâpanîya, Râmatâpanîya*), and endeavours to interpret these in the light of the âtman doctrine. They are composed for the most part in prose with an intermixture of verse. All of these Upanishads were received into the Atharvaveda, but met with no recognition from the leading theologians of the Vedânta.

c6.s2.14

3. *The Upanishads in Bâdarâyaṇa and S'ankara*

c6.s2.15

The earliest traces of a collection of Upanishads are found within the books themselves. Thus the mention in S'vet. 5. 6 of "the Upanishads that form the mystical portion of the Veda" (*veda-guhya-upaniṣadaḥ*), and also the passage S'vet. 6. 22, "in former times in the Vedânta was the deepest mystery revealed," seem to look back to the older Upanishads as a self-contained whole which already claimed a certain antiquity. A similar inference may be drawn from a thrice recurring verse¹ which speaks of ascetics (*yatis*) who have "grasped the meaning of the Vedânta doctrine." Still more clearly do the Upanishads appear as a complete whole when, in Maitr. 2. 3, the doctrine concerning Brahman is described as "the doctrine of all the Upanishads" (*sarva-upaniṣad-vidyâ*). That in so late works as the Sarva-upaniṣad-sâra or the Muktikâ Upanishad the Upanishads are assumed to be a whole is therefore of no further importance.

c6.s2.16

¹ Muṇḍ. 3. 2. 6, Mahânâr. 10. 22, Kaiv. 3.

c6.s2.17

It was undoubtedly on the foundation of older and earlier works that Bâdarâyaṇa formally undertook an epitome of Upanishad doctrine in the *Brahmasûtras*, the foundation of the later Vedânta. He shows that Brahman is the first principle of the world, *samanvayât*, "from the agreement" of the Upanishad texts,² and proclaims the fundamental proposition "that all the texts of the Vedânta deserve credence" (*sarva-vedânta-pratyayam*).³ Which Upanishads, however, were recognised by him as canonical cannot be ascertained from the sûtras themselves owing to their brevity, but only from S'ankara's commentary, and the decision therefore remains in many instances doubtful, since we do not know how far S'ankara followed a reliable tradition. Only in the first *adhyâya* is it possible to determine with greater certainty the Upanishad texts which Bâdarâyaṇa had in his mind, where he undertakes to establish the teaching concerning Brahman in twenty-eight *Adhikaraṇas* (sections) based on as many passages of the Upanishads.

c6.s2.18

² 1. 1. 4.

c6.s2.19

³ 3. 1.

c6.s2.20

Here, as in his entire work, the number four plays a decisive part in the arrangement of the material. Of the twenty-eight fundamental passages, twelve are taken from the Chândogya, four from the Bṛihadāraṇyaka, four from the Kaṭhaka, four from the Taittirīya and Kaushītaki (two from each), and four from the Atharva Upanishads, namely, three from the Muṇḍaka and one from the Pras'na. The following scheme¹ shows that the order of the passages, as they are found within each of the Upanishads which he employs, is strictly observed, while in other respects the passages appear interwoven in a manner for which we seem to be able to find a reason here and there in the close connection of the subject-matter.

c6.s2.21

¹ From Deussen, *System des Vedânta*, p. 130.

c6.s2.22

| (1) | 1. 1. 12-19. | | Taitt. 2. 5. |
| (2) | 20-21. | Chând. 1. 6. 6. | |
| (3) | 22. | Chând. 1. 9. 1. | |
| (4) | 23. | Chând. 1. 11. 5. | |
| (5) | 24-27. | Chând. 3. 13. 7. | |
| (6) | 28-31. | | Kaush. 3. 2. |
| (7) | 1. 2. 1-8. | Chând. 3. 14. 1. | |
| (8) | 9-10. | | Kâṭh. 2. 25. |
| (9) | 11-12. | | Kâṭh. 3. 1. |
| (10) | 13-17. | Chând. 4. 15. 1. | |
| (11) | 18-20. | | Bṛih. 3. 7. 3. |
| (12) | 21-23. | | Muṇḍ. 1. 1. 6. |
| (13) | 24-32. | Chând. 5. 11-24. | |
| (14) | 1. 3. 1-7. | | Muṇḍ. 2. 2. 5. |
| (15) | 8-9. | Chând. 7. 23. | |
| (16) | 10-12. | | Bṛih. 3. 8. 8. |
| (17) | 13. | | Pras'na, 5. 5. |
| (18) | 14-18. | Chând. 8. 1. 1. | |
| (19) | 19-21. | Chând. 8. 12. 3. | |
| (20) | 22-23. | | Muṇḍ. 2. 2. 10. |
| (21) | 24-25. | | Kâṭh. 4. 12. |
| (22) | 39. | | Kâṭh. 6. 1. |
| (23) | 40. | Chând. 8. 12. 3. | |
| (24) | 41. | Chând. 8. 14. | |
| (25) | 42-43. | | Bṛih. 4. 3. 7. |
| (26) | 1. 4. 14-15. | | Taitt. 2. 6. |
| (27) | 16-18. | | Kaush. 4. 19. |
| (28) | 19-22. | | Bṛih. 4. 5. 6. |

c6.s2.23

The striking preference for the Chândogya suggests that an earlier work due to the school of this Upanishad was already in the hands of Bâdarâyaṇa, into which he or one of his predecessors worked sixteen extracts of importance derived from another S'âkhâ, being guided further by the principle that the original order of the extracts should be maintained. Besides the Upanishads named, Bâdarâyaṇa may with some confidence be shown to have used the S'vetâs'vatara,¹ Aitareya,² and perhaps Jâbâla.³ With regard, however, to the formula of imprecation quoted in Sût. 3. 3. 25, which according to S'ankara should find a place “at the beginning of an Upanishad of the Âtharvaṇikas,” and which is nowhere known to exist, I would now suggest (since throughout their works Bâdarâyaṇa and S'ankara make use only of the Muṇḍaka and Pras'na from the Atharva Upanishads, consequently recognise none but these, and since they appear to recognise the authority of the Upanishad that follows the imprecation formula), that the suspected formula may once have stood at the beginning of one of these two, perhaps of the Muṇḍaka Upanishad; somewhat after the manner in which the S'ânti formulas precede the Upanishads in some manuscripts, and in others are wanting.

c6.s2.24

¹ Sût. 1. 4. 8–10.

c6.s2.25

² Sût. 3. 3. 16–18.

c6.s2.26

³ Sût. 1. 2. 32.

c6.s2.27

To the Brahmasûtras of Bâdarâyaṇa is attached the great commentary of S'ankara (circa 800 A.D.), to whom are ascribed, besides other works, the commentaries on the Bṛihadâraṇyaka, Chândogya, Taittirîya, Aitareya, S'vetâs'vatara, Îs'â, Kena, Kaṭha, Pras'na, Muṇḍaka and Mâṇḍûkya, which are edited in the Bibl. Ind., vols. ii., iii., vii., viii. Commentaries therefore of S'ankara are missing on the Kaushîtaki, which was first elucidated by S'ankarânanda (a teacher, according to Hall, Index, p. 98. 123, of Mâdhava, who flourished 1350 A.D.), and on the Maitrâyaṇîya, which Râmatîrtha expounded.

c6.s2.28

The commentaries, however, on the eleven Upanishads named are to be attributed in part probably not to S'ankara himself, but merely to his school, since the explanations given in the Upanishad commentaries often fail to agree with those in the commentary on the sûtras. The commentary on the Mâṇḍûkya which is extant under the name of S'ankara treats this and Gauḍapâda's Kârikâ as one, and seems to regard the whole as in no sense an Upanishad (p. 330: *vedânta-artha-sâra-saṅgraha-bhûtam idam prakaraṇa-c'atuṣṭayam* ‘*om iti etad aksharam*’ *ityâdi ârabhyate*); and with this would agree the fact that the Mâṇḍûkya is not quoted either in the Brahmasûtras or in S'ankara's commentary on them, while two verses from the Kârikâ of Gauḍapâda¹ are cited by S'ankara² with the words, *atra uktam vedânta-artha-sampradâyavidbhir âc'âryaiḥ*. In his commentary on the Brahmasûtras only the following fourteen Upanishads can be shown to have been quoted by S'ankara (the figures attached indicate the number of quotations),—Chândogya 809, Bṛihadâraṇyaka 565, Taittirîya 142, Muṇḍaka 129, Kâṭhaka 103, Kaushîtaki 88, S'vetas'vatara 53, Pras'na 38, Aitareya 22, Jâbâla 13, Mahânârâyaṇa 9, Îs'â 8, Paiṅgi 6, Kena 5.

c6.s2.29

¹ 3. 15 and 1. 16.

c6.s2.30

² P. 375. 3, 433. 1.

c6.s2.31

Although S'ankara regards the texts of the Vedânta which he recognises as a uniform and consistent canon of truth,³ yet he seems still to have had in his hands no collection of Upanishads, since he looks upon the greater number of them as still forming the concluding chapters of their respective Brâhmaṇas, to which therefore he is accustomed to refer at the commencement of the Upanishad commentary. Thus in the introduction to the commentary on the *Kena*¹ he quotes its beginning as “the beginning of the ninth adhyâya;”² before it works have been thoroughly discussed; the acts of adoration also of the prâṇa which serves as the foundation of all works were taught; and further those also which relate to the Sâman that forms a branch of the works. Next followed the consideration of the Gâyatra-sâman, and finally the list of teachers. All the above belongs still to works,” etc. On *Chândogya*, p. 2:—“The entire ritual has been rehearsed, as also the knowledge of Prâṇa-Agni, etc., as divine.” On *Taittirîya*, p. 2:—“The appointed works which serve to atone for trangressions that have been committed, as also the works desirable for those who covet a definite reward, have been rehearsed in the preceding parts of the book (*pûrvasmin granthe*).” On *Bṛihadâraṇyaka*, p. 4: “The connection of this (Upanishad) with the sphere of works is as follows,” etc. On *Îśâ*, p. 1:—“The mantras *îśâ vâsyam*, etc., do not apply (as we should expect) to works, but reveal the nature of the âtman who is independent of works.” On *Aitareya*, p. 143:—“The works together with the knowledge relative to the lower Brahman are remitted,” etc.

c6.s2.32

³ We may compare his exposition on sûtra 3. 3. 1, p. 843:—“How then can the question arise, whether the doctrines concerning the âtman are different or not different; for we cannot suppose the aim of the Vedânta is to teach a plurality of Brahmans, like the existing plurality of phenomena, since Brahman is one and immutable. So it is not possible that concerning the immutable Brahman various doctrines should exist; for to suppose that the actual fact is one thing, and the knowledge of it another, is necessarily a mistake. And even supposing that in the different Vedânta texts various doctrines were taught concerning the immutable Brahman, only one of these could be true; the remainder on the other hand would be false, and the con-

c6.s2.33

¹ Bibl. Ind., p. 28.

c6.s2.34

² In the recension published by Örtel it belongs to the fourth adhyâya.

c6.s2.35

As may be inferred from the comments quoted, all these Upanishads appear to have been still regarded by S'ankara as the concluding portions of their respective sequence would be loss of confidence in the Vedânta. (This, however, in Sankara’s eyes would be an ἀπαγωγὴ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον). It is therefore inconceivable that in the individual texts of the Vedânta a difference of doctrine on the subject of Brahman should find a place.”

c6.s2.36

Brâhmaṇas. On the other hand a similar connection with the part of a preceding work is wanting in the case of the commentaries on Kâṭhaka and S'vetâs'vatara. So also with Muṇḍaka and Pras'na, which are treated by S'ankara as one. In the introduction to Pras'na, p. 160. 2, he remarks:—"in order to examine further the subjects taught in the mantras (of the Muṇḍaka Upanishad, as it is rightly glossed), this Brâhmaṇa (the Pras'na Upanishad) is undertaken." Since, however, the Muṇḍaka and Pras'na exhibit no relationship at all, and since they are attached further to different S'âkhâs of the Atharvaveda (those of S'aunaka and Pippalâda respectively), this unity under which S'ankara treats of them is probably to be explained merely from the fact that as early as his time they were linked together as the first beginning and foundation of a collection of Atharva Upanishads. At that time probably the collection consisted only of these two, for otherwise it is hardly likely that the others would have been ignored by S'ankara so completely as was in fact the case. It is true also that the annotator Ânandajñâna remarks at the beginning of S'ankara's commentary on the Mâṇḍûkya: "Beginning with the Brahma Upanishad (he intends probably the Brahma-vidyâ Upanishad) and the Garbha Upanishad, there are extant besides many Upanishads of the Atharvaveda. Since, however, they are not employed in the S'ârîrakam (the Brahmasûtras of Bâdarâyaṇa), he (S'ankara) does not expound them." But the reason assigned is perhaps not conclusive; for which Upanishads are found in the S'ârîrakam, and which not, could only be determined by tradition or from S'ankara himself. It must therefore have been tradition or S'ankara himself that excluded other Upanishads from the Canon, whether because they were yet unknown, or because they were not yet recognised as Upanishads. And thus in fact S'ankara describes the Mâṇḍûkya, upon which nevertheless, together with Gauḍapâda’s Kârikâ, he had himself commented, not as an Upanishad, but as “a literary composition containing the essence of the Vedânta (vedânta-artha-sâra-sangraha-bhûtam prakaraṇam).”

4. The most important Collections of Upanishads

c6.s3.1

The further history of the Upanishad tradition is for a time shrouded in darkness, and only conjecturally are we able from the existing collections of Upanishads to draw some conclusions as to their origin. These collections or lists fall from the outset into two classes, in so far as they either contain the Upanishads in their entirety, or limit themselves (at least as far as the original design is concerned) to the Upanishads of the Atharvaveda. Of the former class is the Canon of the Muktikâ and the Oupnek’hat, of the latter that of Colebrooke and Nârâyaṇa.

c6.s3.2

Since the Upanishads of the three older Vedas continued to live in the tradition of the S’âkhâs, as long as these survived the secure transmission of the Upanishads concerned was assured. It was otherwise with the Atharvaveda, which was not employed at the sacrifice, and in consequence had no such firmly established tradition of the schools as the text of the three older Vedas upon which to rely for its preservation. This is shown not only by the indifference from which its Saṃhitâ has suffered, but also by the freedom with which it admitted new compositions. The latter would assuredly have been impossible as long as the tradition was under the protection of regular Vedic schools, maintaining themselves from generation to generation according to the rules of their guild. Hence is to be explained the extensive irruption of newly composed Upanishads into the Atharvaveda. As early as S’ankara we find the Muṇḍaka and Pras’na united together (sup. p. 32), and on these as foundation a collection of Atharva Upanishads appears to have been gradually built up, which eventually comprised 34 pieces from Muṇḍaka to Nṛisiṃhatāpanīya, and included also some whose claim to the name of Upanishads had never been previously recognised; just as in the judgement of Śaṅkara the Kārikā of Gauḍapāda on the Māṇḍūkya Upanishad, and indeed this treatise itself (sup. pp. 30, 33), had no claim to the position of an Upanishad. These 34 primary Upanishads of Colebrooke’s list were later extended to 52 by the addition not only of a number of recent compositions, but most remarkably by the side of and among them of seven of the recognised texts of the older Vedas, viz.—35–36 Kāṭhaka, 37 Kena, 39–40 Bṛihannārāyaṇa (= Taitt. Ār. x.), 44 Ānandavallī (= Taitt. Up. 2), and 45 Bhriguvallī (= Taitt. Up. 3). In this manner the collection of 52 Upanishads first made known by Colebrooke originated, the strange combination of which we attempted to explain¹ on the hypothesis that at the time and in the region where this collection was finally put together the three older Vedas were cultivated only in the Śākhās of the Aitareyins, Tāṇḍins (to which the Chāndogya Upanishad belongs), and Vājasaneyins. Accordingly the Upanishads of the remaining Śākhās (with the exception of the Kaushītaki, Śvetāśvatara, and Maitrāyaṇīya, which were perhaps already lost or not recognised) were inserted in the existing collection of Atharva Upanishads with a view to their safe preservation.²

c6.s3.3

¹ Deussen, Upan., p. 537.

c6.s3.4

² An apparently older list has been preserved in the Atharva-parisiṣṭa 2. 13 (Berliner Handschriften, 2. 88), which reckons only 28 Atharva Upanishads, omitting the texts of the older Vedas, but in other respects, as far as it goes, agrees with the lists of Colebrooke and Nārāyaṇa with a single exception.

c6.s3.5

The collection of Nārāyaṇa is in exact agreement with that of Colebrooke, apart from a few variations in the order of the later treatises. The 52 Upanishads of Colebrooke are however reduced to 45, seven sectarian texts being then added to form Nos. 46–52, viz.—two *Gopâlatâpanîya*, *Kṛishṇa*, *Vâsudeva* with *Gopîc’andana*, *Svetâs’vatara*, and two *Varadatâpanîya*. This interrelation is to be explained on the theory that the number 52 had already gained a kind of canonical authority before the desire was felt to insert seven additional texts, which had now for the first time come into existence or obtained recognition. The end was attained by uniting portions that had originally belonged together, and so reducing the existing 52 numbers to 45. Thus room was found for the seven new texts within the number of the 52, thereby facilitating the recognition of the complete list as canonical.

c6.s3.6

The collection of 108 Upanishads, which the *Muktikâ* itself regards as later, appears to belong to an entirely different region (probably the south of India), and to a considerably more recent time. This collection includes all the treatises of Colebrooke (except the *Nîlarudra*, *Piṇḍa*, *Mahânârâyaṇa*, *Âs’rama*) and of Nârâyaṇa (except the *Varadatâpanîya*), although for the most part under different names and sometimes expanded by later additions to thirty or forty times their original extent. Added to these are the 11 Upanishads of the three older Vedas complete, with the exception of the *Mahânârâyaṇa*, and about seventy new texts found nowhere else. The circumstance that in this collection the Upanishads of the three older Vedas also find a place, and that at the very beginning of it, points to a time and region in which a living and reliable tradition of the *S’âkhâs* no longer existed; of which fact a further and yet stronger proof is the bold attempt, made without a shadow of justification, to assign 10 of these 108 Upanishads to the *Ṛigveda*, 19 to the White and 32 to the Black Yajurveda, 16 to the Sâmaveda, and 31 to the Atharvaveda, — a procedure against which the ancient Vedic schools would have strenuously protested. In other respects this collection is of great interest for the later history of the Vedânta (perhaps mainly or exclusively among the Telugu Brâhmans), and deserves closer examination now that it has been made accessible in the Devanâgarî edition of 1896. Previously there had existed only an edition in the Telugu character. It is worthy of note also that S'ankarânanda's readings often agree with those of the 108 Upanishads against those of the 52 and of Nârâyaṇa.

c6.s3.7

A position apart both from the 52 and the 108 Upanishads is occupied by that collection of 50 Upanishads which, under the name of Oupnek'hat, which was translated from the Sanskrit into Persian in the year 1656 at the instance of the Sultan Mohammed Dara Shakoh, and from the Persian into Latin in 1801–02 by Anquetil Duperron. The Oupnek'hat also, like the Muktikâ collection, professes to be a general collection of Upanishads. It contains under twelve divisions the Upanishads of the three older Vedas, and with them twenty-six Atharva Upanishads that are known from other sources. It further comprises eight treatises peculiar to itself, five of which have not up to the present time been proved to exist elsewhere, and of which therefore a rendering from the Persian-Latin of Anquetil is alone possible.¹ Finally, the Oupnek'hat contains four treatises from the Vâj. Saṃh. 16. 31. 32. 34, of which the first is met with in a shorter form in other collections also as the Nilarudra Upanishad, while the three last have nowhere else found admission.² The reception of these treatises from the Saṃhitâ into the body of the Upanishads, as though there were danger of their otherwise falling into oblivion, makes us infer a comparatively late date for the Oupnek'hat collection itself, although as early as 1656 the Persian translators made no claim to be the original compilers, but took the collection over already complete. They seem, indeed, to have regarded it as originating in a period long past.¹ Owing to the excessive literality with which Anquetil Duperron rendered these Upanishads word by word from the Persian into Latin, while preserving the syntax of the former language,—a literality that stands in striking contrast to the freedom with which the Persian translators treated the Sanskrit text,—the Oupnek'hat is a very difficult book to read; and an insight as keen as that of Schopenhauer was required in order to discover within this repellent husk a kernel of invaluable philosophical significance, and to turn it to account for his own system.²

c6.s3.8

¹ See Deussen, Upan., p. 838 f.

c6.s3.9

² These, as belonging to the early history of the Upanishads, I have translated and discussed sup. I. 1 pp. 156 f., 290 f., 291 f., 335.

c6.s3.10

¹ See Deussen, *Upan.*, p. 535.

c6.s3.11

² Schopenhauer's judgement on the Oupnek'hat is quoted in Deussen, *Upan.*, p. vi.

c6.s3.12

An examination of the material placed at our disposal in the Oupnek'hat was first undertaken by A. Weber, *Ind. Stud.*, i., ii., ix., on the basis of the Sanskrit text. Meanwhile the original texts were published in the Bibliotheca Indica in part with elaborate commentaries, and again in the Ânandâsrama series. Max Mûller translated the twelve oldest Upanishads in *Sacred Books of the East*, vols. i., xv. The two longest and some of the shorter treatises have appeared in a literal German rendering by O. Böhtlingk. And my own translation of the 60 Upanishads (Leipzig, 1897) contains complete texts of this character which, upon the strength of their regular occurrence in the Indian collections and lists of the Upanishads, may lay claim to a certain canonicity. The prefixed Introductions and the Notes treat exhaustively of the matter and composition of the several treatises, and there is therefore no necessity to enter here further into these literary questions.

Linked texts (28)