Indian Antiquary Vol 62

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

Page 224

212
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
NOVEMBER, 1933
Neither by carana alone nor by vidyâ alone can the goal be reached (10), but he who recognizes and practises both until his end, is by both together released from rebirth (11).
There is in the Vişnu-Purana (VI, 6) a remarkable story (referred to by Râmânuja in his Sribhâsya) which makes use, though not saying so, of the triplet as explained above.
There were two kinge, we are told, called Khåndikya and Kesidhvaja, of whom the former was a great authority in the karmamärga, while the latter was well-versed in atmavidya. But Keśidhvaja wanted liberation and for this purpose took also to sacrifices (iyája so 'pi subahan yajñán), viz., in order to "brahmavidyam adhisthaya tartum mrtyum avidyaya." At one time, being at a loss concerning a prayaścitta, he asked for and obtained instruction from Khâņdikya, whom he then, at his request, rewarded with âtmavidyâ in the place of a dakşiņa, and so at last both of them were in possession of the twofold means of liberation.30
I said that in the Kanva recension the connection of the first with the second triplet is less evident than with the Madhyandinas. Still, here also the connection can be easily established, viz., by means of the question whether the double effort expected of the mumuksu in the first triplet is really worth being made, if it results in a state which according to some philosophers is tantamount to non-existence.
. To return now to the problem of the different position of the triplets in the two recensions, I would say that this discrepancy is less difficult to be accounted for on the supposition that the Madhyandina text is the older one.31 For, then we could assume that the position of the triplets was intentionally reversed by the Kanvas, because of the greater importance they attached to the vidy& avidyå triplet in the sense in which they understood it, after the original meaning had been forgotten or put in the shade by the new one. On the other hand there is this to be said in favour of the Kåņva text, that in it the position and meaning of the said triplet is in harmony with what seems to be the principal object of the author of the Upanişad, viz., the inculcation of samuccaya82 ; and that, looked at from this point of view, the position of the triplets as found with the Kånvas might appear to be the original one, as it could høre be accounted for by the author's wish to deal first with the practical, and for him more important, problem of the mokşasadhana before dealing with a merely theoretical doubt. In this case, then, the Madhyandinas, without (rather than with) changing the meaning of the vidyâ-avidya triplet, would have reversed the position of the triplets in favour of what appeared to them the more logical order. There is, however, one serious drawback in this second hypothesis, viz., its inability to refer the words anyad and tad occurring in both triplets to one and the same word and the only one which can be supplied for them without difficulty and from the wording of the Upanisad itself. The first impression of the unbiaseed reader, and the last after having carefully examined everything implied, must, in my opinion, inevitably be that both these words in either triplet cannot originally refer to anything else but the Absolute (the brahman called tad in st, 4 and 5, and śukram in 8). The Absolute our author meant to say-is neither merely existent and conscious nor merely non-existent or unconscious (st, 10 and 13), but is rather both (st. 11 and 14), viz., the latter from the worldly point of view and the former in a higher (metaphysical) sense, i.e., within its own realm which is not really accessible to definitions (yato vico rivartante).
30 The point of the story has been entirely missed by Prof. Wilson, because he was not aware of its source.
31 That is to say, in this particular point, but not necessarily as regards the readings vidydydh and qvidydyan.
39 Note the emphasis laid once more on works in the concluding section of the Upaniyad (st. 17).