English
But the same philosopher looked upon the Upani* shads as worthy to become the foundation of a new religion, and he published several of them himself with notes and translations. ^^ The adoration of the invisible Supreme Being," he writes, " is exclusively prescribed by the Upanishads or the principal parts of the Veda, and tflso by the Vedant," and if other portions of the Veda seem to be in contradiction with the pure doctrine of the Upanishads, he hints that the whole work must not only be stripped of its autho- rity, but looked upon as altogether unintelligible.^ The early Hindus did not find any difficulty in reconciling the most different and sometimes con- tradictory opinions in their search after truth ; and a most extraordinary medley of oracular sayings might be collected from the Upanishads, even from those which are genuine and comparatively ancient, all tending to elucidate the darkest points of philosophy and religion, the creation of the world, the nature of 1 U. 23. It is also found in the Mundaka. ' Pravachana^ tradition, the Brahmanas ; see p. 109. Commen- tary : " ekavedasvikaranena," " by learning one Veda." > Translation of the Kena-upanishad by Rammohun Boy, Cal- cutta, 1816, p. 6. UPANISHADS. 321 God, the relation of man to God, and similar subjects. That one statement should be contradicted by another seems never to have been felt as any serious difficulty. Thus we read in the first verse of the dvetlisvatara- upanishad : ^^ Is Brahman the cause ? Whence are we bom? By what do we live? Where do we go? At whose command do we walk after the Law, in happiness and misery ? Is Time the cause, or Na- ture, or Law, or Chance, or the Elements ? Is Man to be taken as the source of all ? Nor is it their union, because there must be an independent Self, and even that independent Self has no power over that which causes happiness and pain."' The an- swers returned to such questions are naturally vague and various. Thus M&dhava in his Commentary on Pard&ira, quotes first from the Bahvricha-upanishad. " In the beginning this (world) was Self alone, there was nothing else winking. He thought. Let me create the worlds, and he created these worlds." From this it would foUow that the absolute Self was supposed to have created everything out of nothing. But im- mediately afterwards M&dhava quotes from another XJpanishad, the SvetfiAvatara (IV. 10.), where M&yA or delusion is called the principle, and the Great Lord himself, the deluded.^ This is evidently an ^if^rf&TfT; 5Nt ^^(i^a 4Am^ 'r^lf^ ^w^h 322 UFAKISHADS. allusion to S&nkhya doctrines, but M&dhava explains it in a different sense. He maintains that here also the Divine Self is meant by the Great Lord, and that Delusion is only one of his powers, as heat is a power of fire.^ And he appeals to another passage in the same Upanishad (I. 3.), where it is said " that sages endowed with meditation and intuition, saw the power of the Divine Self, concealed by his own qualities." This same interpretation is adopted in the S&tras of the Yedllnta-philosophy, but it by no means follows that therefore it is the true one. The principal interest of the older Upanishads con- sists in the absence of that systematic uniformity which we find in the later systems of philosophy, and it is to be regretted that nearly all scholars who have translated portions of the Upanishads have allowed themselves to be guided by the Brahmanic commen- tators. The commentators wrote all, more or less, under the influence of philosophical systems, and thought themselves justified in explaining the Upani- shads in such a manner that they should agree, even in the most minute points, with the Siitras of the philosophical schools. But the authors of the Upani- shads were poets rather than philosophers. Truth itself assumed, in their eyes, an aspect varying ac- d^fi<^tf<4 ^j^ w^ 7S* Tf^i ire ^u w- UFANISHADS. 323 cording io their own feelings and misgivings. We saw that the Bahvricha-upanishad placed Atman or the Self at the beginning of all things. The Taittirtya- upanishad^ speaks of Brahman the true, omniscient, and infinite, and derives from it the ether, the air, fire, water, earth, plants, food, seed, and body.^ This, in the eyes of the later commentators, may appear substantially the same doctrine as that of the Bahv- richa-upanishad. But to us it is of interest to mark the difference, and to watch the various attempts which were made to express the idea of a creator. The Bahvrichas, by calling him Atman in the mascu- line, showed that they were impressed more strongly with the idea of a personal Being; the Taittiriyas, speaking of Brahman as neuter, gave more promi- nence to the idea of a Power. It was an epoch in the history of the human mind when the identity of the masculine Self and the neutral Brahman -was for the first time perceived, and the name of the dis- coverer has not been forgotten. It was l§dndilya who declared that the Self within our heart is Brah- nian (Chhftnd.-up. iii. 4. 14. p. 208.), and this tenet, somewhat amplified, is quoted as ^^S&ndilya's wis- dom " by the author of the Satapatha-brfthmana (x. 6. 3.). Other sages among the Chhandogas^ again 1 BibL Lid. vii. 56. * Farusba is body rather than man. M&dhava says: TPf Chhand-up. vi. 2. ; BibL Ind. iii. 394 U'rqcl ^Vnj^iTO T 2 324 XJFAIOSHADS. speak simply of a Sat^ or a Being, which desired to be many, and created the light, the light flowing into water, the water into food, and so on. The Athar- vanikas speak of the Creator as Akshara^ and it must remain doubtful whether they connected with this word the idea of the Indestructible or of Element.^ The term used by the V&jasaneyins is Avydkrita^ or the Undeveloped. Every one of these terms had originally a meaning of its own, and though in later times they may all be used synonymously, they ought to be kept distinct when we are tracing the history of the human mind. Some of the ancient sages, after having arrived at the idea of Avy&krita, Un- developed, went even beyond, and instead of the Sat or tI ov, they postulated an AsoU^ rl jx^ oy, aef the beginning of all things. Thus we read in the Chh&ndogya-upanishad ^ : ^^And some say, in the beginning there was Asat (not being), alone, without a second; and from this Aaat might the Sat be bom." But in spite of the great variety of philosophical thought on this and similar subjects that was to be found in the Upanishads, the want of new Upanishads was felt by the sects which sprang up in eveiy part of 1 See Goldstucker'a Dictionary, 8. v. MAdhaya says : ^T9(T Chhand.-up. vi. 1. Tf^ ^IS<4*^^<^4J ^l4lX**l- ^TfilTfN d^l<ild: ^^TT^I UFAimHADS. 325 Ifidia.^ The old Upanishads, however, were not re* jectedy and to the present day the ten which are chiefly studied in Bengal are the Brihad&ranyaka, the Aitareya, Ghh&ndogya, Taittiriya, l6a, Eena, £atha, Pra^na, Mundaka and Md^diikya-upanishads. Every one of these has been published, and we possess an excellent edition both of text and commentary by Dr. Roer in the volumes of the Bibliotheca Indica* The whole number of Upanishads, however, known to be or to have been in existence, is much larger. It was com-* monly stated at 62^, but it has lately been brought as high as 108 ^ and even higher. Some of the titles given in various lists belong most likely to smaller portions of certain Upanishads, and these extracts, adopted by some sect or other, were afterwards quoted as independent treatises.^ Many are of very modem origin, and have no right to be mentioned in connec- tion with Vedic literature. In order, however, to have this whole mass of literature together, every work that claims the title of Upanishad on any ground whatsoever, has been incorporated in an alphabetical list, which will be printed as an Appendix. There are several works which had to be consulted in drawing up this list. First, Anquetil Duperron's Oupnekhat^, a ' Ward, A View of the Historj, Literature, and Mythology of the Hindus, ii. 61. * Ward, loc cit. p. 61. * W. Elliot, Journal of the As. Soc. of Bengal, 1851, p. 607. ^ The Maitreyi'upanishad (29. 89.) is probably meant for the Dialogue between Yl^navalkya and Maitreyi in the Brihad&ran- yaka. The ^dilya-upanishad (57. 105.) seems to be a portion of the Chhftndogya-upanishad.