________________
MAY, 1927]
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE UPANISHADS
89
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE UPANISADS.
BY UMESH CHANDRA BHATTACHARJEE, M.A., BL. Gough and Deussen led the way, and it is now a fashion in philosophical circles to speak of a Philosophy of the Upanisads, as distinguished from the Vedanta of the Vedanta-Sutra.. Gough's interpretation of the Upanigade has not been accepted as very sensible ; but Deussen has been followed as the founder of a school. And just as in earlier times, there arose in India different schools of interpretation of the Vedanta-Satras, so, in modern times, the same drama is being re-enacted with regard to the Upanigads, and we are well-nigh on the verge of having different schools of interpretation of the Upanigads over again. For instance, Prof. Radhakrishnan does not accept Deussen's interpretation of the doctrine of Mâyâ in the Upanigads. (Radhakrishnan, Philosophy of the Upaninads, pp. 65-67.) He further contends (The Mind, April, 1926), that his "interpretation of the Upanisads is not an unreason. able one, though it may seem to differ from this or that tradition in this or that point.” Ob. viously, he claims the liberty to put his own interpretation upon the texts; and, as a neces sary corollary, he cannot deny the same liberty to others. We are not suggesting intellec. tual stagnation ; but there is some slight danger of intellectual anarchy, if you sever the short and cryptic utterances of the Upaninade from the old block of which they are but chips, and from the literature and traditions that went before and after them.
But the idea seems to have gained ground that the Upanirads can be interpreted as an inde. pendent philosophy-although as a system its elements cohere very much more loosely than elsewhere; and that this system of Upanipadic philosophy is distinguishable from the Vedanta system, though this is professedly the system of the interpretation of the Vedantas or the Upanigads.
The most important reason for such an attitude is that the system of the Vedanta-Sutras is either the system of Sankara or of Ramanuja or of some other system-builder; and there. fore, the philosophy of the Upanixas had better he studied in its original sources, viz., the texts of the Upaniyads. But dazzled by the differences of the diverse systems of interpretation of the Vedanta-Sátrar, we overlook the very important fact that there is a common substratum underlying all these systems and that their affinities are inmensely greater than their differences. Besides, it is not impossible to decipher these common elements.
Before, however, we consider this, we might recollect the brief history of modern attempts to discover a philosophy of the Upaninads, as distinguished from the Vedânta-system. We shall find that there it is not the same materials always that have been used. Gough, for instance, constructed his philosophy of the Upaninds out of 13 Upanişads only, though he knew that more were in existence, "Treatises bearing the name of Upanişads," says he," are numerous. Those in highest esteem have always been the Chandogya, Brihadaranyaka, lúa, Kena, Katha, Prayna, Mundaka, Måndakyu, Aitareya, Taittiriya, Svetasvatara, Maitråyani, Kausitaki."
Deussen, who is more generally recognised to have been the sponsor, if not the father, of this idea, does not appear to have known more than 60 U paninads, though he knew the list of 108 U panirads given in the Muktika Upaninad (ride his Philosophy of the Upanigads, Eng. tr. pp. 33 el seq.); and his Philosophy of the Upanigads is built on a much smaller number (op.cit. Index ii).
Hume constructs a philosophy based mainly on thirteen principal Upanipads, which he translates. And Radhakrishnan is still more limited in his scope. "The main Upanisads for our purposes are,” says he," the Chandogya and the Brihadaranyaka, the Taittiriya and the Aitareya, the Kausitaki and the Kena; the lsâ and the Mândâkya come next." (Philo. sophy of the Upanigade, p. 19.)
But the Upanigadic literature is much more extensive than has been comprehended in Deussen's or any other interpretation. (Cf. The Nirnaya Sagar Press, Bombay, Edition of the Upanipadic Texts; also, Catalogue of Mss. in the Adyar Library, Madras). It is no doubt true that there are chronological and doctrinal differences among these books, which cannot escape notice : some are more Upanişadic in character, while others are more
