________________
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[MAY, 10:21
their doctrinal affinities and construct several philosophies of the Upanipads? The groups in which they are usually taken are more or less arbitrary; individual thinkers or individual books of the Upanigads cannot be expected to yield much philosophy; the whole literature is too extensive and too diversified to yield any common system. What, then, can we do but think of some other grouping ?
Deussen himself in his Sixty Upanişuds and also in his Philosophy of the Upanişads (p. 9), has suggested a classification of the Upanişads, which refers mainly to the minor Upanirads of the Atharvaveda, but may be extended to cover the other Upaniruds also. This classification has been accepted by Schrader also (vide his edition of the Minor Upaniyads, publication of the Adyar Library, Madras, vol. I, Intro. p. ii). It has, therefore, the sanction of authority and includes the following classes : (a) Vedanta-Upanişads ; (6) Yoga-Upanişads; (c) Sannyasa-Upanişads ; (d) Siva-Upanişads; (e) Vişņu-Upanişads. Using this as a classifi. cation of the entire range of Upanişadic literature, it seems that we may expect as many as five systems of Upanişadic philosophy.
As the names imply, a large number of the Upanigads are sectarian in character. We may note here in passing that sect-cults were advanced in India by a threefold literature, viz., sect-Puranas, sect-Gitús and sect-Upanişads ; sometimes, though not so frequently, a sect attempted to develop a philosophy also of its own (cf. Madhava, Sarva-darsana-samgra. ha). Some of these sect-Gitás are found embedded in the corresponding Puranas, some exist independently (vide my paper on Gitá-literature in the Indian Historical Quarterly, Oct. 1926). All the religious sects did not possess Puranas nor did all have Gitás: but some on the other hand had both, c.g., the Ganesa cult had a Purana which included also a Gita; and some had only one of the three. In any case, some of the sect-cults came to possess a Upaniral; and we have Upanigads belonging to the Siva or Vişnu cult. It is need less to say that all the Upanigauls are not sectarian, but quite a large number of them are.
Now, if we are to use a classification of the Upanigads as the above, what would be the consequence! Shall we still have the same philosophy of the Upanigads as now, or shall we have several philosophies! A Vedanta philosophy based upon some of the Upanisads will still be available ; but it will be only one out of several philosophies. And a large number of these will be sectphilosophies, every one of which will ally itself more easily with the other branches of the corresponding sect-literature rather than with the philosophy of the Upanişads of any other group.
Curiously enough, though this classification of the Upunixads has been recognised as valid, no corresponding philosophies of the various groups of the Upaniwads have ever been attempted. And why? For the obvious reason that these would hard ly be a philosophy worthy of the name, though some of them would be excellent elucidation of sect-cults.
We seem to be on the horns of a dilemma, then : if the Upanişads are not arranged and classified in some way or other, they form a chaos; if they are classified, they tend to yield not one but several philosophies. We see, therefore, that though since Gough's time and following Deussen's lead, a philosophy of the Upanišads is always spoken of, it involves an anomaly and is not altogether free from patch-work. Such a philosophy is bound to contain elements all of which cannot be found in books of the same group or of the same period of time. We have to pick up materials and knit them together into a system ; but the mate. rials are often gathered from books which are widely separated by chronological and doc. trinal differences. Deussen's own book is not free from this somewhat arbitrary selection and combination of materials. For one part of his philosophy, he quotes more or less exclusively from one set of books and for another from another. Thus, for his theory of Brahma and the univerno (op.cit., pp. 157-179), he quotes almost exclusively from the Brhadaranyaka, Mundaka, Chandogya, Katha, Aitareya and Kausitaki ; whereas, for his doctrine of Asramas, specially of Sonnyaos and Yoga, his quotations are mainly from the Kanchasruli, Jabdia, Kurikd, Sannyra later and a different group of Upanigade (cf. Das Gupta, Hist. of Ind. Ph., p. 39n.).
(To be continued.)
