INTRODUCTION. THIS second volume completes the translation of the principal Upanishads to which Sankara appeals in his great commentary on the Vedânta-Sûtras1, viz.: 1. Khândogya-upanishad, 2. Talavakâra or Kena-upanishad, 4. Kaushîtaki-upanishad, 6. Katha-upanishad, 7. Mundaka-upanishad, 8. Taittirîyaka-upanishad, 9. Brihadâranyaka-upanishad, These eleven have sometimes 2 been called the old and genuine Upanishads, though I should be satisfied to call them the eleven classical Upanishads, or the fundamental Upanishads of the Vedânta philosophy. Vidyaranya3, in his 'Elucidation of the meaning of all the Upanishads,' Sarvopanishadarthânubhûti-prakâsa, confines himself likewise to those treatises, dropping, however, the Îsâ, and adding the Maitrâyana-upanishad, of which I have given a translation in this volume, and the Nrisimhottara-tapanîya-upanishad, the translation of which had to be reserved for the next volume. 1 See Deussen, Vedânta, Einleitung, p. 38. Sankara occasionally refers also to the Paingi, Agnirahasya, Gâbâla, and Nârâyanîya Upanishads. 2 Deussen, loc. cit. p. 82. I state this on the authority of Professor Cowell. See also Fitzedward Hall, Index to the Bibliography of the Indian Philosophical Systems, pp. 116 and 236. It is more difficult to determine which of the Upanishads were chosen by Sankara or deserving the honour of a special commentary. We possess his commentaries on the eleven Upanishads mentioned before1, with the exception of the Kaushîtaki 2-upanishad. We likewise possess his commentary on the Mândûkya-upanishad, but we do not know for certain whether he left commentaries on any of the other Upanishads. Some more or less authoritative statements have been made that he wrote commentaries on some of the minor Upanishads, such as the Atharvasiras, Atharva-sikhâ, and the Nrisimhatâpanî3. But as, besides Sankarâkârya, the disciple of Govinda, there is Sanarânanda, the disciple of Ânandâtman, another writer of commentaries on the Upanishads, it is possible that the two names may have been confounded by less careful copyists *. With regard to the Nrisimhatâpanî all uncertainty might seen to be removed, after Professor Râmamaya Tarkaratna has actually published its text with the commentary of Sankarâkârya in the Bibliotheca Indica, Calcutta, 1871. But some uncertainty still remains. While at the end of each Khanda of the Nrisimha-pûrvatâpanî we read that the Bhâshya was the work of the Paramahamsa-parivrâgakâkârya Srî-Sankara, the pupil of Govinda, we have no such information for the Nrisimha-uttaratâpanî, but are told on the contrary that the words Srî-Govindabhagavat &c. have been added at the end by the editor, because he thought fit to do so. This is, to say the least, very suspicious, and we must wait for further confirmation. There is another commentary on this Upanishad by Nârâyanabhatta, the son of Bhatta Ratnâkara 3, who is well known as the author of Dîpikâs on several Upanishads. 1 They have been published by Dr. Roer in the Bibliotheca Indica. * Dr. Weber's statement that Sankara wrote a commentary on the Kaushîtakiupanishad has been corrected by Deussen, loc. cit. p. 39. 3 See Deussen, loc. cit. p. 39. A long list of works ascribed to Sankara may be seen in Regnaud, Philosophie de l'Inde, p. 34, chiefly taken from Fitzedward Hall's Index of Indian Philosophical Systems. 5 See Tarkaratna's Vigƒâpana, p. 3, 1. 5. I subjoin a list of thirty of the smaller Upanishads, published by Professor Râmamaya Tarkaratna in the Bibliotheca Indica, with the commentaries of Nârâyanabhatta. pp. 60-73. PP. 73-78. pp. 78-82. pp. 83-101. 1. Sira-upanishad, pp.1-10; Dîpikâ by Nârâyana, pp. 42–60. 2. Garbha-upanishad, pp. 11-15; 3. Nâdavindu-upanishad, pp. 15–17; 4. Brahmavindu-upanishad, pp. 18–20; „, 5. Amritavindu-upanishad, pp. 21–25; „ 6. Dhyânavindu-upanishad, pp. 26-28;,, 7. Tegovindu-upanishad, pp. 29–30; 8. Yogasikhâ-upanishad, pp. 31-32; 9. Yogatattva-upanishad, pp. 33-34; 10. Sannyâsa-upanishad, pp. 35-39; 11. Åruneya-upanishad, pp. 39-41; pp. 102-114. Pp. 114-118. pp. 118-122. pp. 122-127. Pp. 128-184. 99 pp. 184-196. ibidem. 12. Brahmavidya-upanishad, pp. 197-203; " PP. 304-358; 23. Râmottaratâpanîya-upanishad, PP. 359-384; 24. Hanumadukta-Râma-upanishad, PP. 385-393; 25. Sarvopanishat-sârak, pp. 394-404; 27. Paramahamsa-upanishad, pp. 417-436; 36 Kaivalya-upanishad, pp. 465-479; Dîpikâ by 30. Garuda-upanishad, pp. 480 seq.; Dîpikâ by We owe to the same editor in the earlier numbers of the Bibliotheca the following editions: Nrisimhapûrvatâpanî-upanishad, with commentary. Nrisimhottaratâpanî-upanishad, with commentary. Shatkakra-upanishad, with commentary by Nârâyana. Lastly, Harakandra Vidyabhushana and Visvanâtha Sâstrî have published in the Bibliotheca Indica an edition of the Gopâlatâpanî-upanishad, with commentary by Visvesvara. These editions of the text and commentaries of the Upanishads are no doubt very useful, yet there are many passages where the text is doubtful, still more where the commentaries leave us without any help. Whatever other scholars may think of the difficulty of translating the Upanishads, I can only repeat what I have said before, that I know of few Sanskrit texts presenting more formidable problems to the translator than these philosophical treatises. It may be said that most of them had been translated before. No doubt they have been, and a careful comparison of my own translation with those of my predecessors will show, I believe, that a small advance, at all events, has now been made towards a truer understanding of these ancient texts. But I know full well how much still remains to bc done, both in restoring a correct text, and in discovering the original meaning of the Upanishads; and I have again and again had to translate certain passages tentatively only, or following the commentators, though conscious all the time that the meaning which they extract from the text cannot be the right one. As to the text, I explained in my preface to the first volume that I attempted no more than to restore the text, such as it must have existed at the time when Sankara wrote his commentaries. As Sankara lived during the ninth century A.D.', and as we possess no MSS. of so early a date, all reasonable demands of textual criticism would thereby seem to be satisfied. Yet, this is not quite so. We may draw such a line, and for the present keep within it, but scholars who hereafter take up the study of the 1 India, What can it teach us? p. 360. |