Indian Antiquary Vol 62

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 219

NOVEMBER, 1933]
A CRITICAL STUDY OF ISOPANISAD
207
Sukram, etc., as true neuters (yad brahma paryagát .... ), but connects saḥ with kavih, eto., as referring to the same Brahma in its aspect as the personal isvara. Another improve. ment would seem to be possible by looking at śukram, etc., as adverbs; but considering the sparing use made of adverbs in Sanskrit it must be doubted that the passage has ever been understood in this way. On the other hand we may, as most commentators do, understand śukram, etc., as accusatives dependent on paryagát conceived transitively with the atmavid of the preceding stanza as its subject. As a matter of fact, parigâ (as also parigam) cannot be shown to have ever been employed without an object (excepting only the post-Christian parigata " spread out, diffused "), and Sankara's forced explanation, as any others based on it, must therefore be rejected. It is clear, moreover, that for fixing the meaning of an Upanişad passage no commentator can be more authoritative for us thair the oldest traceable paraphrase of it in the Upanigads themselves, i.e., in our case, Brhadaranyaka Up. IV, 4, 13: yasyanuvittah pratibuddha atma .... sa visvakt sa hi sarvasya karta ....). Still, such constructions as in Ramacandra's second suggestion, viz., yah sukram.... brahma paryagát sarvabhávena jñatarán . . . . sa brahmajñaḥ kavih ...., are certainly not ad. missible. But we need only turn to another Upanişad for the definite solution of our problem. Kathaka Up. V, 8, which is evidently the source of our passage, runs: ya esa suplesu jagarti kamam kamam nirmimånah tad eva śukram tad brahma, etc. 10 Here we have the neuter noun bukra ; here we have the masculine corresponding with the neuter (yah ... tad)11; and here we have the correspondence with arthân vyadadhat. I, therefore, regard yáthatathyato'rthan as corrupted (through a gloss) from yo'rthan, because the omission of the relative pronoun is utterly improbable here, and construe: yah kavir .... arthán vyadhat (for vyadadhát; see above) (tat) sukram akayam.... apa paviddham sa (átmavit) paryagát, i.e.: "He has reached the bodiless .... Essence 12 (which is also the ... Sage who has allotted ...".
For the interpretation of stanzas 9 to 11 and 12 to 14 first of all four general points have to be noticed, viz. (1) that the two triplets are meant to be exactly parallel ; (2) that the four terms vidya, etc., are all of them ambiguous, and that, therefore, though in 9 and 10 and in 12 and 13, respectively, they are, of course, used in the same sense, they may be used in a different sense in 11 and 14, respectively; (3) that in the second half of ll'and 14, respectively, the gerund is more likely to mean simultaneousness than previousness, because the two phrases motyum tarati and amrtam aśnute are generally used without a shade of difference in the Indian religious language ; and (4) that by the word anyad in 10 and 13 more likely than not the same reference is intended as by tad in 11 and 14.
The use made of Is Up. in Brhadaranyaka Up. IV, 4, 10 ff., is quite evident : after stanza 10, which is identical with IAA 9, and stanza 11, which is fsâ 3 slightly modifiod, there follows 12 which is essen. tially the same as Iś& 7, and than, with the same metrical change as in tsa Up. from the anustubh to the trieţubh, the paraphrase referred to above of Isa 8. Finally, there is a correspondence in both the meaning and the last three words of stanza 15 with ISA 6. Brhadaranyaka Up. is as a whole of course older than ISA Up., but the whole section IV, 4, 8-21 introduced by tad ete flokd bhavanti is evidently a mere modley of quotations (modified or not) from Tsa, Kena, Kathaks and one or two unknown texta.
10 Note the celebrity of the phrase tad eva hukram tad bralma. It is reposted in Kathaka Up. VI, 1, and Svetåkvatara IV, 2, and also used in Mahånår&yapa I, 7, MaitrAyapa VI, 24 and 35, and (with the puruga placed above brahma, as in Bhag. Gita XIV, 3) in Mundaka III, 2, 1.
11 Comp. Kathaka Up. VI, 17: tam vidydc chuleram amplam. Considering the mahâvâkya ayam dimd brahma it is strange that Sankara could not avoid having recourse to linga vyatyaya.
13. Or "Light"; comp. Balakronadasa: fukramp vidvabljap tejah.
18 Instead of the neuters we could, of course, have masculines by regarding bukram as an adjective and supplying tam (or levaram or paramdamanam) instead of lat. But the series of epithets used here is of the kind found generally with the neuter brahman or aksara only, and the Upanigads distinguish between hukra, which is a noun, and fukla, which is an adjective.-It must also bo doubted that the advaitic turn of Bhadaranyaka Up. IV, 4, 13 (300 above) is in agreement with tho (more thoistic) spirit of tsa Up.