Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Philosophy of the Upanishads c6.s2: 2. The extant Upanishads

The Philosophy of the Upanishads c6.s2

Language
English

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).”

Linked texts (20)