Produced by Srinivasan Sriram and sripedia.org, William Boerst and PG Distributed Proofreaders.
nikhilam anujachittaM jnanasutrair naverya@h sajabhiva kusumanaM kalandhhrair vidhatte/ sa laghum api mamaitaM prAchyavijnanatantuM upah@rtamatibhaktya modataM mai g@rhitva//
May He, who links the minds of all people, through the apertures of time, with new threads of knowledge like a garland of flowers, be pleased to accept this my thread of Eastern thought, offered, though it be small, with the greatest devotion.
A HISTORY OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY
SURENDRANATH DASGUPTA
VOLUME I
First Edition: Cambridge, 1922
DEDICATION
The work and ambition of a life-time is herein humbly dedicated with supreme reverence to the great sages of India, who, for the first time in history, formulated the true principles of freedom and devoted themselves to the holy quest of truth and the final assessment and discovery of the ultimate spiritual essence of man through their concrete lives, critical thought, dominant will and self-denial.
NOTE ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF
TRANSLITERATED SANSKRIT
AND PALI WORDS
The vowels are pronounced almost in the same way as in Italian, except that the sound of _a_ approaches that of _o_ in _bond_ or _u_ in _but_, and _a_ that of _a_ as in _army_. The consonants are as in English, except _c_, _ch_ in church; _@t_, _@d_, _@n_ are cerebrals, to which English _t_, _d_, _n_ almost correspond; _t_, _d_, _n_ are pure dentals; _kh_, _gh_, _ch_, _jh_, _@th_, _@dh_, _th_, _dh_, _ph_, _bh_ are the simple sounds plus an aspiration; _n_ is the French _gn_; _@r_ is usually pronounced as _ri_, and _s’_, _@s_ as _sh_.
PREFACE
The old civilisation of India was a concrete unity of many-sided developments in art, architecture, literature, religion, morals, and science so far as it was understood in those days. But the most important achievement of Indian thought was philosophy. It was regarded as the goal of all the highest practical and theoretical activities, and it indicated the point of unity amidst all the apparent diversities which the complex growth of culture over a vast area inhabited by different peoples produced.
It is not in the history of foreign invasions, in the rise of independent kingdoms at different times, in the empires of this or that great monarch that the unity of India is to be sought. It is essentially one of spiritual aspirations and obedience to the law of the spirit, which were regarded as superior to everything else, and it has outlived all the political changes through which India passed.
The Greeks, the Huns, the Scythians, the Pathans and the Moguls who occupied the land and controlled the political machinery never ruled the minds of the people, for these political events were like hurricanes or the changes of season, mere phenomena of a natural or physical order which never affected the spiritual integrity of Hindu culture. If after a passivity of some centuries India is again going to become creative it is mainly on account of this fundamental unity of her progress and civilisation and not for anything that she may borrow from other countries. It is therefore indispensably necessary for all those who wish to appreciate the significance and potentialities of Indian culture that they should properly understand the history of Indian philosophical thought which is the nucleus round which all that is best and highest in India has grown. Much harm has already been done by the circulation of opinions that the culture and philosophy of India was dreamy and abstract. It is therefore very necessary that Indians as well as other peoples should become more and more acquainted with the true characteristics of the past history of Indian thought and form a correct estimate of its special features.
But it is not only for the sake of the right understanding of India
viii
that Indian philosophy should be read, or only as a record of the past thoughts of India. For most of the problems that are still debated in modern philosophical thought occurred in more or less divergent forms to the philosophers of India. Their discussions, difficulties and solutions when properly grasped in connection with the problems of our own times may throw light on the course of the process of the future reconstruction of modern thought. The discovery of the important features of Indian philosophical thought, and a due appreciation of their full significance, may turn out to be as important to modern philosophy as the discovery of Sanskrit has been to the investigation of modern philological researches. It is unfortunate that the task of re-interpretation and re-valuation of Indian thought has not yet been undertaken on a comprehensive scale. Sanskritists also with very few exceptions have neglected this important field of study, for most of these scholars have been interested more in mythology, philology, and history than in philosophy. Much work however has already been done in the way of the publication of a large number of important texts, and translations of some of them have also been attempted. But owing to the presence of many technical terms in advanced Sanskrit philosophical literature, the translations in most cases are hardly intelligible to those who are not familiar with the texts themselves.
A work containing some general account of the mutual relations of the chief systems is necessary for those who intend to pursue the study of a particular school. This is also necessary for lay readers interested in philosophy and students of Western philosophy who have no inclination or time to specialise in any Indian system, but who are at the same time interested to know what they can about Indian philosophy. In my two books _The Study of Patanjali_ and _Yoga Philosophy in relation to other Indian Systems of Thought_ I have attempted to interpret the Saemkhya and Yoga systems both from their inner point of view and from the point of view of their relation to other Indian systems. The present attempt deals with the important features of these as also of all the other systems and seeks to show some of their inner philosophical relations especially in regard to the history of their development. I have tried to be as faithful to the original texts as I could and have always given the Sanskrit or Pali technical terms for the help of those who want to make this book a guide
ix
for further study. To understand something of these terms is indeed essential for anyone who wishes to be sure that he is following the actual course of the thoughts.
In Sanskrit treatises the style of argument and methods of treating the different topics are altogether different from what we find in any modern work of philosophy. Materials had therefore to be collected from a large number of works on each system and these have been knit together and given a shape which is likely to be more intelligible to people unacquainted with Sanskritic ways of thought. But at the same time I considered it quite undesirable to put any pressure on Indian thoughts in order to make them appear as European. This will explain much of what might appear quaint to a European reader. But while keeping all the thoughts and expressions of the Indian thinkers I have tried to arrange them in a systematic whole in a manner which appeared to me strictly faithful to their clear indications and suggestions. It is only in very few places that I have translated some of the Indian terms by terms of English philosophy, and this I did because it appeared to me that those were approximately the nearest approach to the Indian sense of the term. In all other places I have tried to choose words which have not been made dangerous by the acquirement of technical senses. This however is difficult, for the words which are used in philosophy always acquire some sort of technical sense. I would therefore request my readers to take those words in an unsophisticated sense and associate them with such meanings as are justified by the passages and contexts in which they are used. Some of what will appear as obscure in any system may I hope be removed if it is re-read with care and attention, for unfamiliarity sometimes stands in the way of right comprehension. But I may have also missed giving the proper suggestive links in many places where condensation was inevitable and the systems themselves have also sometimes insoluble difficulties, for no system of philosophy is without its dark and uncomfortable corners.
Though I have begun my work from the Vedic and Brahma@nic stage, my treatment of this period has been very slight. The beginnings of the evolution of philosophical thought, though they can be traced in the later Vedic hymns, are neither connected nor systematic.
x
More is found in the Brahmanas, but I do not think it worth while to elaborate the broken shreds of thought of this epoch. I could have dealt with the Upani@sad period more fully, but many works on the subject have already been published in Europe and those who wish to go into details will certainly go to them. I have therefore limited myself to the dominant current flowing through the earlier Upani@sads. Notices of other currents of thought will be given in connection with the treatment of other systems in the second volume with which they are more intimately connected. It will be noticed that my treatment of early Buddhism is in some places of an inconclusive character. This is largely due to the inconclusive character of the texts which were put into writing long after Buddha in the form of dialogues and where the precision and directness required in philosophy were not contemplated. This has given rise to a number of theories about the interpretations of the philosophical problems of early Buddhism among modern Buddhist scholars and it is not always easy to decide one way or the other without running the risk of being dogmatic; and the scope of my work was also too limited to allow me to indulge in very elaborate discussions of textual difficulties. But still I also have in many places formed theories of my own, whether they are right or wrong it will be for scholars to judge. I had no space for entering into any polemic, but it will be found that my interpretations of the systems are different in some cases from those offered by some European scholars who have worked on them and I leave it to those who are acquainted with the literature of the subject to decide which of us may be in the right. I have not dealt elaborately with the new school of Logic (Navya-Nyaya) of Bengal, for the simple reason that most of the contributions of this school consist in the invention of technical expressions and the emphasis put on the necessity of strict exactitude and absolute preciseness of logical definitions and discussions and these are almost untranslatable in intelligible English. I have however incorporated what important differences of philosophical points of view I could find in it. Discussions of a purely technical character could not be very fruitful in a work like this. The bibliography given of the different Indian systems in the last six chapters is not exhaustive but consists mostly of books which have been actually studied or consulted in the writing of those chapters. Exact references to the pages of the
xi
texts have generally been given in footnotes in those cases where a difference of interpretation was anticipated or where it was felt that a reference to the text would make the matter clearer, or where the opinions of modern writers have been incorporated.
It gives me the greatest pleasure to acknowledge my deepest gratefulness to the Hon’ble Maharaja Sir Manindrachandra Nundy, K.C.I.E. Kashimbazar, Bengal, who has kindly promised to bear the entire expense of the publication of both volumes of the present work.
The name of this noble man is almost a household word in Bengal for the magnanimous gifts that he has made to educational and other causes. Up till now he has made a total gift of about L300,000, of which those devoted to education come to about L200,000. But the man himself is far above the gifts he has made. His sterling character, universal sympathy and friendship, his kindness and amiability make him a veritable Bodhisattva–one of the noblest of men that I have ever seen. Like many other scholars of Bengal, I am deeply indebted to him for the encouragement that he has given me in the pursuit of my studies and researches, and my feelings of attachment and gratefulness for him are too deep for utterance.
I am much indebted to my esteemed friends Dr E.J. Thomas of the Cambridge University Library and Mr Douglas Ainslie for their kindly revising the proofs of this work, in the course of which they improved my English in many places. To the former I am also indebted for his attention to the transliteration of a large number of Sanskrit words, and also for the whole-hearted sympathy and great friendliness with which he assisted me with his advice on many points of detail, in particular the exposition of the Buddhist doctrine of the cause of rebirth owes something of its treatment to repeated discussions with him.
I also wish to express my gratefulness to my friend Mr N.K. Siddhanta, M.A., late of the Scottish Churches College, and Mademoiselle Paule Povie for the kind assistance they have rendered in preparing the index. My obligations are also due to the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press for the honour they have done me in publishing this work.
To scholars of Indian philosophy who may do me the honour of reading my book and who may be impressed with its inevitable
xii
shortcomings and defects, I can only pray in the words of Hemacandra:
Prama@nasiddhantaviruddham atra
Yatkinciduktam matimandyado@sat
Matsaryyam utsaryya tadaryyacitta@h Prasadam adhaya vis’odhayantu. [Footnote ref 1]
S.D.
TRINITY COLLEGE,
CAMBRIDGE.
_February_, 1922.
_____________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: May the noble-minded scholars instead of cherishing ill feeling kindly correct whatever errors have been here committed through the dullness of my intellect in the way of wrong interpretations and misstatements.]
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY……………………………………………..1
CHAPTER II
THE VEDAS, BRAHMA@NAS AND THEIR PHILOSOPHY
1 The Vedas and their antiquity……………………………10 2 The place of the Vedas in the Hindu mind………………….10 3 Classification of the Vedic literature……………………11 4 The Sa@mhitas………………………………………….12 5 The Brahma@nas…………………………………………13 6 The Ara@nyakas…………………………………………14 7 The @Rg-Veda, its civilization…………………………..14 8 The Vedic gods…………………………………………16 9 Polytheism, Henotheism, and Monotheism……………………17 10 Growth of a Monotheistic tendency; Prajapati, Vis’vakarma…..19 11 Brahma………………………………………………..20 12 Sacrifice; the First Rudiments of the Law of Karma…………21 13 Cosmogony–Mythological and Philosophical…………………23 14 Eschatology; the Doctrine of Atman……………………….25 15 Conclusion…………………………………………….26
CHAPTER III
THE EARLIER UPANI@SADS (700 B.C.-600 B.C.)
1 The place of the Upani@sads in Vedic literature……………28 2 The names of the Upani@sads; Non-Brahmanic influence……….30 3 Brahma@nas and the Early Upani@sads………………………31 4 The meaning of the word Upani@sad………………………..38 5 The composition and growth of diverse Upani@sads…………..38 6 Revival of Upani@sad studies in modern times………………39 7 The Upani@sads and their interpretations………………….41 8 The quest after Brahman: the struggle and the failures……..42 9 Unknowability of Brahman and the Negative Method…………..44 10 The Atman doctrine……………………………………..45 11 Place of Brahman in the Upani@sads……………………….48 12 The World……………………………………………..51 13 The World-Soul…………………………………………52 14 The Theory of Causation…………………………………52 15 Doctrine of Transmigration………………………………53 16 Emancipation…………………………………………..58
CHAPTER IV
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE SYSTEMS OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY
1 In what sense is a History of Indian Philosophy possible?……62 2 Growth of the Philosophic Literature………………………65 3 The Indian systems of Philosophy………………………….67 4 Some fundamental points of agreement………………………71 1 _The Karma theory_…………………………………..71 2 _The Doctrine of Mukti_………………………………74 3 _The Doctrine of Soul_……………………………….75 5 The Pessimistic Attitude towards the World and the Optimistic Faith in the end………………………………………..75 6 Unity in Indian Sadhana (philosophical, religious and ethical endeavours)…………………………………………….77
xiv
CHAPTER V
BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY
1 The State of Philosophy in India before Buddha……………..78 2 Buddha: his Life………………………………………..81 3 Early Buddhist Literature………………………………..82 4 The Doctrine of Causal Connection of early Buddhism…………84 5 The Khandhas……………………………………………93 6 Avijja and Asava………………………………………..99 7 Sila and Samadhi……………………………………….100 8 Kamma…………………………………………………106 9 Upani@sads and Buddhism…………………………………109 10 The Schools of Theravada Buddhism………………………..112 11 Mahayanism…………………………………………….125 12 The Tathata Philosophy of As’vagho@sa (80 A.D.)……………129 13 The Madhyamika or the Sunyavada school–Nihilism…………..138 14 Uncompromising Idealism or the School of Vijnanavada Buddhism.145 15 Sautrantika theory of Perception…………………………151 16 Sautrantika theory of Inference………………………….155 17 The Doctrine of Momentariness……………………………158 18 The Doctrine of Momentariness and the Doctrine of Causal Efficiency (Arthakriyakaritva)…………………………….163 19 Some Ontological Problems on which the Different Indian Systems diverged………………………………………………..164 20 Brief Survey of the Evolution of Buddhist Thought………….166
CHAPTER VI
THE JAINA PHILOSOPHY
1 The Origin of Jainism…………………………………..169 2 Two Sects of Jainism……………………………………170 3 The Canonical and other Literature of the Jains……………171 4 Some General Characteristics of the Jains…………………172 5 Life of Mahavira……………………………………….173 6 The Fundamental Ideas of Jaina Ontology…………………..173 7 The Doctrine of Relative Pluralism (Anekantavada)………….175 8 The Doctrine of Nayas…………………………………..176 9 The Doctrine of Syadvada………………………………..179 10 Knowledge, its value for us……………………………..181 11 Theory of Perception……………………………………183 12 Non-Perceptual knowledge………………………………..185 13 Knowledge as Revelation…………………………………186 14 The Jivas……………………………………………..188 15 Karma Theory…………………………………………..190 16 Karma, Asrava and Nirjara……………………………….192 17 Pudgala……………………………………………….195 18 Dharma, Adharma, Akas’a…………………………………197 19 Kala and Samaya………………………………………..198 20 Jaina Cosmography………………………………………199 21 Jaina Yoga…………………………………………….199 22 Jaina Atheism………………………………………….203 23 Mok@sa (emancipation)…………………………………..207
xv
CHAPTER VII
THE KAPILA AND THE PATANJALA SA@MKHYA (YOGA)
1 A Review………………………………………………208 2 The Germs of Sa@mkhya in the Upani@sads…………………..211 3 Sa@mkhya and Yoga Literature…………………………….212 4 An Early School of Sa@mkhya……………………………..213 5 Sa@mkhya karika, Sa@mkhya sutra, Vacaspati Mis’ra and Vijnana Bhiksu………………………………………………….222 6 Yoga and Patanjali……………………………………..226 7 The Sa@mkhya and the Yoga doctrine of Soul or Purusa……….238 8 Thought and Matter……………………………………..241 9 Feelings, the Ultimate Substances………………………..242 10 The Gunas……………………………………………..243 11 Prak@@rti and its evolution……………………………..245 12 Pralaya and the disturbance of the Prak@rti Equilibrium…….247 13 Mahat and Ahamkara……………………………………..248 14 The Tanmatras and the Paramanus………………………….251 15 Principle of Causation and Conservation of Energy………….254 16 Change as the formation of new collocations……………….255 17 Causation as Satkaryavada (the theory that the effect potentially exists before it is generated by the movement of the cause)……………………………………………257 18 Sa@mkhya Atheism and Yoga Theism…………………………258 19 Buddhi and Purusa………………………………………259 20 The Cognitive Process and some characteristics of Citta…….261 21 Sorrow and its Dissolution………………………………264 22 Citta…………………………………………………268 23 Yoga Purificatory Practices (Parikarma)…………………..270 24 The Yoga Meditation…………………………………….271
CHAPTER VIII
THE NYAYA-VAISESIKA PHILOSOPHY
1 Criticism of Buddhism and Sa@mkhya from the Nyaya standpoint…274 2 Nyaya and Vais’e@sika sutras……………………………..276 3 Does Vais’e@sika represent an old school of Mima@msa?……….280 4 Philosophy in the Vais’e@sika sutras………………………285 5 Philosophy in the Nyaya sutras……………………………294 6 Philosophy of Nyaya sutras and Vais’e@sika sutras…………..301 7 The Vais’e@sika and Nyaya Literature………………………305 8 The main doctrine of the Nyaya-Vais’e@sika Philosophy……….310 9 The six Padarthas: Dravya, Gu@na, Karma, Samanya, Vis’e@sa, Samavaya………………………………………………..313 10 The Theory of Causation…………………………………319 11 Dissolution (Pralaya) and Creation (S@r@s@ti)……………..323 12 Proof of the Existence of Is’vara………………………..325 13 The Nyaya-Vais’e@sika Physics……………………………326 14 The Origin of Knowledge (Prama@na)……………………….330 15 The four Prama@nas of Nyaya……………………………..332 16 Perception (Pratyak@sa)…………………………………333 17 Inference……………………………………………..343 18 Upamana and S’abda……………………………………..354 19 Negation in Nyaya-Vais’e@sika……………………………355 20 The necessity of the Acquirement of debating devices for the seeker of Salvation…………………………………..360 21 The Doctrine of Soul……………………………………362 22 Is’vara and Salvation…………………………………..363
xvi
CHAPTER IX
MIMA@MSA PHILOSOPHY
1 A Comparative Review…………………………………….367 2 The Mima@msa Literature………………………………….369 3 The Parata@h-prama@nya doctrine of Nyaya and the Svata@h-prama@nya doctrine of Mima@msa……………………..372 4 The place of Sense-organs in Perception……………………375 5 Indeterminate and Determinate Perception…………………..378 6 Some Ontological Problems connected with the Doctrine of Perception………………………………………………379 7 The Nature of Knowledge………………………………….382 8 The Psychology of Illusion……………………………….384 9 Inference………………………………………………387 10 Upamana, Arthapatti…………………………………….391 11 S’abda-prama@na………………………………………..394 12 The Prama@na of Non-perception (anupalabdhi)………………397 13 Self, Salvation, and God………………………………..399 14 Mima@msa as Philosophy and Mima@msa as Ritualism…………..403
CHAPTER X
THE S’A@NKARA SCHOOL OF VEDANTA
1 Comprehension of the Philosophical Issues more essential than the Dialectic of Controversy………………………………406 2 The philosophical situation: a Review……………………..408 3 Vedanta Literature………………………………………418 4 Vedanta in Gau@dapada……………………………………420 5 Vedanta and Sa@nkara (788-820 A.D.)……………………….429 6 The main idea of the Vedanta philosophy……………………439 7 In what sense is the world-appearance false?……………….443 8 The nature of the world-appearance, phenomena………………445 9 The Definition of Ajnana (nescience)………………………452 10 Ajnana established by Perception and Inference…………….454 11 Locus and Object of Ajnana, Aha@mkara and Anta@hkara@na…….457 12 Anirvacyavada and the Vedanta dialectic…………………..461 13 The Theory of Causation…………………………………465 14 Vedanta theory of Perception and Inference………………..470 15 Atman, Jiva, Is’vara, Ekajivavada and D@r@s@tis@r@s@tivada….474 16 Vedanta theory of Illusion………………………………485 17 Vedanta Ethics and Vedanta Emancipation…………………..489 18 Vedanta and other Indian systems…………………………492
INDEX……………………………………………………495
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY
The achievements of the ancient Indians in the field of philosophy are but very imperfectly known to the world at large, and it is unfortunate that the condition is no better even in India. There is a small body of Hindu scholars and ascetics living a retired life in solitude, who are well acquainted with the subject, but they do not know English and are not used to modern ways of thinking, and the idea that they ought to write books in vernaculars in order to popularize the subject does not appeal to them. Through the activity of various learned bodies and private individuals both in Europe and in India large numbers of philosophical works in Sanskrit and Pali have been published, as well as translations of a few of them, but there has been as yet little systematic attempt on the part of scholars to study them and judge their value. There are hundreds of Sanskrit works on most of the systems of Indian thought and scarcely a hundredth part of them has been translated. Indian modes of expression, entailing difficult technical philosophical terms are so different from those of European thought, that they can hardly ever be accurately translated. It is therefore very difficult for a person unacquainted with Sanskrit to understand Indian philosophical thought in its true bearing from translations. Pali is a much easier language than Sanskrit, but a knowledge of Pali is helpful in understanding only the earliest school of Buddhism, when it was in its semi-philosophical stage. Sanskrit is generally regarded as a difficult language. But no one from an acquaintance with Vedic or ordinary literary Sanskrit can have any idea of the difficulty of the logical and abstruse parts of Sanskrit philosophical literature. A man who can easily understand the Vedas. the Upani@sads, the Puranas, the Law Books and the literary works, and is also well acquainted with European philosophical thought, may find it literally impossible to understand even small portions of a work of advanced Indian logic, or the dialectical Vedanta. This is due to two reasons, the use of technical terms and of great condensation in expression, and the hidden allusions to doctrines of other systems. The
2
tendency to conceiving philosophical problems in a clear and unambiguous manner is an important feature of Sanskrit thought, but from the ninth century onwards, the habit of using clear, definite, and precise expressions, began to develop in a very striking manner, and as a result of that a large number of technical terms began to be invented. These terms are seldom properly explained, and it is presupposed that the reader who wants to read the works should have a knowledge of them. Any one in olden times who took to the study of any system of philosophy, had to do so with a teacher, who explained those terms to him. The teacher himself had got it from his teacher, and he from his. There was no tendency to popularize philosophy, for the idea then prevalent was that only the chosen few who had otherwise shown their fitness, deserved to become fit students (_adhikari_) of philosophy, under the direction of a teacher. Only those who had the grit and high moral strength to devote their whole life to the true understanding of philosophy and the rebuilding of life in accordance with the high truths of philosophy were allowed to study it.
Another difficulty which a beginner will meet is this, that sometimes the same technical terms are used in extremely different senses in different systems. The student must know the meaning of each technical term with reference to the system in which it occurs, and no dictionary will enlighten him much about the matter [Footnote ref 1]. He will have to pick them up as he advances and finds them used. Allusions to the doctrines of other systems and their refutations during the discussions of similar doctrines in any particular system of thought are often very puzzling even to a well-equipped reader; for he cannot be expected to know all the doctrines of other systems without going through them, and so it often becomes difficult to follow the series of answers and refutations which are poured forth in the course of these discussions. There are two important compendiums in Sanskrit giving a summary of some of the principal systems of Indian thought, viz. the _Sarvadars’anasa@mgraha_, and the _@Sa@ddars’anasamuccaya_ of Haribhadra with the commentary of Gu@naratna; but the former is very sketchy and can throw very little light on the understanding of the ontological or epistemological doctrines of any of the systems. It has been translated by Cowell and Gough, but I
____________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: Recently a very able Sanskrit dictionary of technical philosophical terms called Nyayakos’a has been prepared by M.M. Bhimacarya Jhalkikar, Bombay, Govt. Press.]
3
am afraid the translation may not be found very intelligible. Gu@naratna’s commentary is excellent so far as Jainism is concerned, and it sometimes gives interesting information about other systems, and also supplies us with some short bibliographical notices, but it seldom goes on to explain the epistemological or ontological doctrines or discussions which are so necessary for the right understanding of any of the advanced systems of Indian thought. Thus in the absence of a book which could give us in brief the main epistemological, ontological, and psychological positions of the Indian thinkers, it is difficult even for a good Sanskrit scholar to follow the advanced philosophical literature, even though he may be acquainted with many of the technical philosophical terms. I have spoken enough about the difficulties of studying Indian philosophy, but if once a person can get himself used to the technical terms and the general positions of the different Indian thinkers and their modes of expression, he can master the whole by patient toil. The technical terms, which are a source of difficulty at the beginning, are of inestimable value in helping us to understand the precise and definite meaning of the writers who used them, and the chances of misinterpreting or misunderstanding them are reduced to a minimum. It is I think well-known that avoidance of technical terms has often rendered philosophical works unduly verbose, and liable to misinterpretation. The art of clear writing is indeed a rare virtue and every philosopher cannot expect to have it. But when technical expressions are properly formed, even a bad writer can make himself understood. In the early days of Buddhist philosophy in the Pali literature, this difficulty is greatly felt. There are some technical terms here which are still very elastic and their repetition in different places in more or less different senses heighten the difficulty of understanding the real meaning intended to be conveyed.
But is it necessary that a history of Indian philosophy should be written? There are some people who think that the Indians never rose beyond the stage of simple faith and that therefore they cannot have any philosophy at all in the proper sense of the term. Thus Professor Frank Thilly of the Cornell University says in his _History of Philosophy_ [Footnote ref 1], “A universal history of philosophy would include the philosophies of all peoples. Not all peoples, however
__________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: New York, 1914, p. 3.]
4
have produced real systems of thought, and the speculations of only a few can be said to have had a history. Many do not rise beyond the mythological stage. Even the theories of Oriental peoples, the Hindus, Egyptians, Chinese, consist, in the main, of mythological and ethical doctrines, and are not thoroughgoing systems of thought: they are shot through with poetry and faith. We shall, therefore, limit ourselves to the study of the Western countries, and begin with the philosophy of the ancient Greeks, on whose culture our own civilization in part, rests.” There are doubtless many other people who hold such uninformed and untrue beliefs, which only show their ignorance of Indian matters. It is not necessary to say anything in order to refute these views, for what follows will I hope show the falsity of their beliefs. If they are not satisfied, and want to know more definitely and elaborately about the contents of the different systems, I am afraid they will have to go to the originals referred to in the bibliographical notices of the chapters.
There is another opinion, that the time has not yet come for an attempt to write a history of Indian philosophy. Two different reasons are given from two different points of view. It is said that the field of Indian philosophy is so vast, and such a vast literature exists on each of the systems, that it is not possible for anyone to collect his materials directly from the original sources, before separate accounts are prepared by specialists working in each of the particular systems. There is some truth in this objection, but although in some of the important systems the literature that exists is exceedingly vast, yet many of them are more or less repetitions of the same subjects, and a judicious selection of twenty or thirty important works on each of the systems could certainly be made, which would give a fairly correct exposition. In my own undertaking in this direction I have always drawn directly from the original texts, and have always tried to collect my materials from those sources in which they appear at their best. My space has been very limited and I have chosen the features which appeared to me to be the most important. I had to leave out many discussions of difficult problems and diverse important bearings of each of the systems to many interesting aspects of philosophy. This I hope may be excused in a history of philosophy which does not aim at completeness. There are indeed many defects and shortcomings, and
5
these would have been much less in the case of a writer abler than the present one. At any rate it may be hoped that the imperfections of the present attempt will be a stimulus to those whose better and more competent efforts will supersede it. No attempt ought to be called impossible on account of its imperfections.
In the second place it is said that the Indians had no proper and accurate historical records and biographies and it is therefore impossible to write a history of Indian philosophy. This objection is also partially valid. But this defect does not affect us so much as one would at first sight suppose; for, though the dates of the earlier beginnings are very obscure, yet, in later times, we are in a position to affirm some dates and to point out priority and posteriority in the case of other thinkers. As most of the systems developed side by side through many centuries their mutual relations also developed, and these could be well observed. The special nature of this development has been touched on in the fourth chapter. Most of the systems had very early beginnings and a continuous course of development through the succeeding centuries, and it is not possible to take the state of the philosophy of a particular system at a particular time and contrast it with the state of that system at a later time; for the later state did not supersede the previous state, but only showed a more coherent form of it, which was generally true to the original system but was more determinate. Evolution through history has in Western countries often brought forth the development of more coherent types of philosophic thought, but in India, though the types remained the same, their development through history made them more and more coherent and determinate. Most of the parts were probably existent in the earlier stages, but they were in an undifferentiated state; through the criticism and conflict of the different schools existing side by side the parts of each of the systems of thought became more and more differentiated, determinate, and coherent. In some cases this development has been almost imperceptible, and in many cases the earlier forms have been lost, or so inadequately expressed that nothing definite could be made out of them. Wherever such a differentiation could be made in the interests of philosophy, I have tried to do it. But I have never considered it desirable that the philosophical interest should be subordinated to the chronological. It is no
6
doubt true that more definite chronological information would be a very desirable thing, yet I am of opinion that the little chronological data we have give us a fair amount of help in forming a general notion about the growth and development of the different systems by mutual association and conflict. If the condition of the development of philosophy in India had been the same as in Europe, definite chronological knowledge would be considered much more indispensable. For, when one system supersedes another, it is indispensably necessary that we should know which preceded and which succeeded. But when the systems are developing side by side, and when we are getting them in their richer and better forms, the interest with regard to the conditions, nature and environment of their early origin has rather a historical than a philosophical interest. I have tried as best I could to form certain general notions as regards the earlier stages of some of the systems, but though the various features of these systems at these stages in detail may not be ascertainable, yet this, I think, could never be considered as invalidating the whole programme. Moreover, even if we knew definitely the correct dates of the thinkers of the same system we could not treat them separately, as is done in European philosophy, without unnecessarily repeating the same thing twenty times over; for they all dealt with the same system, and tried to bring out the same type of thought in more and more determinate forms.
The earliest literature of India is the Vedas. These consist mostly of hymns in praise of nature gods, such as fire, wind, etc. Excepting in some of the hymns of the later parts of the work (probably about 1000 B.C.), there is not much philosophy in them in our sense of the term. It is here that we first find intensely interesting philosophical questions of a more or less cosmological character expressed in terms of poetry and imagination. In the later Vedic works called the Brahmaf@nas and the Ara@nyakas written mostly in prose, which followed the Vedic hymns, there are two tendencies, viz. one that sought to establish the magical forms of ritualistic worship, and the other which indulged in speculative thinking through crude generalizations. This latter tendency was indeed much feebler than the former, and it might appear that the ritualistic tendency had actually swallowed up what little of philosophy the later parts of the Vedic hymns were trying to express, but there are unmistakable marks that this tendency
7
existed and worked. Next to this come certain treatises written in prose and verse called the Upani@sads, which contain various sorts of philosophical thoughts mostly monistic or singularistic but also some pluralistic and dualistic ones. These are not reasoned statements, but utterances of truths intuitively perceived or felt as unquestionably real and indubitable, and carrying great force, vigour, and persuasiveness with them. It is very probable that many of the earliest parts of this literature are as old as 500 B.C. to 700 B.C. Buddhist philosophy began with the Buddha from some time about 500 B.C. There is reason to believe that Buddhist philosophy continued to develop in India in one or other of its vigorous forms till some time about the tenth or eleventh century A.D. The earliest beginnings of the other Indian systems of thought are also to be sought chiefly between the age of the Buddha to about 200 B.C. Jaina philosophy was probably prior to the Buddha. But except in its earlier days, when it came in conflict with the doctrines of the Buddha, it does not seem to me that the Jaina thought came much in contact with other systems of Hindu thought. Excepting in some forms of Vai@s@nava thought in later times, Jaina thought is seldom alluded to by the Hindu writers or later Buddhists, though some Jains like Haribhadra and Gu@naratna tried to refute the Hindu and Buddhist systems. The non-aggressive nature of their religion and ideal may to a certain extent explain it, but there may be other reasons too which it is difficult for us to guess. It is interesting to note that, though there have been some dissensions amongst the Jains about dogmas and creeds, Jaina philosophy has not split into many schools of thought more or less differing from one another as Buddhist thought did.
The first volume of this work will contain Buddhist and Jaina philosophy and the six systems of Hindu thought. These six systems of orthodox Hindu thought are the Sa@mkhya, the Yoga, the Nyaya, the Vais’e@sika, the Mima@msa (generally known as Purva Mima@msa), and the Vedanta (known also as Uttara Mima@msa). Of these what is differently known as Sa@mkhya and Yoga are but different schools of one system. The Vais’e@sika and the Nyaya in later times became so mixed up that, though in early times the similarity of the former with Mima@msa was greater than that with Nyaya, they came to be regarded as fundamentally almost the same systems. Nyaya and Vais’e@sika have therefore been treated
8
together. In addition to these systems some theistic systems began to grow prominent from the ninth century A.D. They also probably had their early beginnings at the time of the Upani@sads. But at that time their interest was probably concentrated on problems of morality and religion. It is not improbable that these were associated with certain metaphysical theories also, but no works treating them in a systematic way are now available. One of their most important early works is the _Bhagavadgata_. This book is rightly regarded as one of the greatest masterpieces of Hindu thought. It is written in verse, and deals with moral, religious, and metaphysical problems, in a loose form. It is its lack of system and method which gives it its peculiar charm more akin to the poetry of the Upani@sads than to the dialectical and systematic Hindu thought. From the ninth century onwards attempts were made to supplement these loose theistic ideas which were floating about and forming integral parts of religious creeds, by metaphysical theories. Theism is often dualistic and pluralistic, and so are all these systems, which are known as different schools of Vai@s@nava philosophy. Most of the Vai@s@nava thinkers wished to show that their systems were taught in the Upani@sads, and thus wrote commentaries thereon to prove their interpretations, and also wrote commentaries on the _Brahmasutra_, the classical exposition of the philosophy of the Upani@sads. In addition to the works of these Vai@s@nava thinkers there sprang up another class of theistic works which were of a more eclectic nature. These also had their beginnings in periods as old as the Upani@sads. They are known as the S’aiva and Tantra thought, and are dealt with in the second volume of this work.
We thus see that the earliest beginnings of most systems of Hindu thought can be traced to some time between 600 B.C. to 100 or 200 B.C. It is extremely difficult to say anything about the relative priority of the systems with any degree of certainty. Some conjectural attempts have been made in this work with regard to some of the systems, but how far they are correct, it will be for our readers to judge. Moreover during the earliest manifestation of a system some crude outlines only are traceable. As time went on the systems of thought began to develop side by side. Most of them were taught from the time in which they were first conceived to about the seventeenth century A.D. in an unbroken chain of teachers and pupils. Even now each system of Hindu thought has its own adherents, though few people now
9
care to write any new works upon them. In the history of the growth of any system of Hindu thought we find that as time went on, and as new problems were suggested, each system tried to answer them consistently with its own doctrines. The order in which we have taken the philosophical systems could not be strictly a chronological one. Thus though it is possible that the earliest speculations of some form of Sa@mkhya, Yoga, and Mima@msa were prior to Buddhism yet they have been treated after Buddhism and Jainism, because the elaborate works of these systems which we now possess are later than Buddhism. In my opinion the Vais’e@sika system is also probably pre-Buddhistic, but it has been treated later, partly on account of its association with Nyaya, and partly on account of the fact that all its commentaries are of a much later date. It seems to me almost certain that enormous quantities of old philosophical literature have been lost, which if found could have been of use to us in showing the stages of the early growth of the systems and their mutual relations. But as they are not available we have to be satisfied with what remains. The original sources from which I have drawn my materials have all been indicated in the brief accounts of the literature of each system which I have put in before beginning the study of any particular system of thought.
In my interpretations I have always tried to follow the original sources as accurately as I could. This has sometimes led to old and unfamiliar modes of expression, but this course seemed to me to be preferable to the adoption of European modes of thought for the expression of Indian ideas. But even in spite of this striking similarities to many of the modern philosophical doctrines and ideas will doubtless be noticed. This only proves that the human mind follows more or less the same modes of rational thought. I have never tried to compare any phase of Indian thought with European, for this is beyond the scope of my present attempt, but if I may be allowed to express my own conviction, I might say that many of the philosophical doctrines of European philosophy are essentially the same as those found in Indian philosophy. The main difference is often the difference of the point of view from which the same problems appeared in such a variety of forms in the two countries. My own view with regard to the net value of Indian philosophical development will be expressed in the concluding chapter of the second volume of the present work.
10
CHAPTER II
THE VEDAS, BRAHMANAS AND THEIR PHILOSOPHY
The Vedas and their antiquity.
The sacred books of India, the Vedas, are generally believed to be the earliest literary record of the Indo-European race. It is indeed difficult to say when the earliest portions of these compositions came into existence. Many shrewd guesses have been offered, but none of them can be proved to be incontestably true. Max Mueller supposed the date to be 1200 B.C., Haug 2400 B.C. and Bal Ga@ngadhar Tilak 4000 B.C. The ancient Hindus seldom kept any historical record of their literary, religious or political achievements. The Vedas were handed down from mouth to mouth from a period of unknown antiquity; and the Hindus generally believed that they were never composed by men. It was therefore generally supposed that either they were taught by God to the sages, or that they were of themselves revealed to the sages who were the “seers” (_mantradra@s@ta_) of the hymns. Thus we find that when some time had elapsed after the composition of the Vedas, people had come to look upon them not only as very old, but so old that they had, theoretically at least, no beginning in time, though they were believed to have been revealed at some unknown remote period at the beginning of each creation.
The place of the Vedas in the Hindu mind.
When the Vedas were composed, there was probably no system of writing prevalent in India. But such was the scrupulous zeal of the Brahmins, who got the whole Vedic literature by heart by hearing it from their preceptors, that it has been transmitted most faithfully to us through the course of the last 3000 years or more with little or no interpolations at all. The religious history of India had suffered considerable changes in the latter periods, since the time of the Vedic civilization, but such was the reverence paid to the Vedas that they had ever remained as the highest religious authority for all sections of the Hindus at all times. Even at this day all the obligatory duties of the Hindus at birth, marriage, death, etc., are performed according to the old
11
Vedic ritual. The prayers that a Brahmin now says three times a day are the same selections of Vedic verses as were used as prayer verses two or three thousand years ago. A little insight into the life of an ordinary Hindu of the present day will show that the system of image-worship is one that has been grafted upon his life, the regular obligatory duties of which are ordered according to the old Vedic rites. Thus an orthodox Brahmin can dispense with image-worship if he likes, but not so with his daily Vedic prayers or other obligatory ceremonies. Even at this day there are persons who bestow immense sums of money for the performance and teaching of Vedic sacrifices and rituals. Most of the Sanskrit literatures that flourished after the Vedas base upon them their own validity, and appeal to them as authority. Systems of Hindu philosophy not only own their allegiance to the Vedas, but the adherents of each one of them would often quarrel with others and maintain its superiority by trying to prove that it and it alone was the faithful follower of the Vedas and represented correctly their views. The laws which regulate the social, legal, domestic and religious customs and rites of the Hindus even to the present day are said to be but mere systematized memories of old Vedic teachings, and are held to be obligatory on their authority. Even under British administration, in the inheritance of property, adoption, and in such other legal transactions, Hindu Law is followed, and this claims to draw its authority from the Vedas. To enter into details is unnecessary. But suffice it to say that the Vedas, far from being regarded as a dead literature of the past, are still looked upon as the origin and source of almost all literatures except purely secular poetry and drama. Thus in short we may say that in spite of the many changes that time has wrought, the orthodox Hindu life may still be regarded in the main as an adumbration of the Vedic life, which had never ceased to shed its light all through the past.
Classification of the Vedic literature.
A beginner who is introduced for the first time to the study of later Sanskrit literature is likely to appear somewhat confused when he meets with authoritative texts of diverse purport and subjects having the same generic name “Veda” or “S’ruti” (from _s’ru_ to hear); for Veda in its wider sense is not the name of any
12
particular book, but of the literature of a particular epoch extending over a long period, say two thousand years or so. As this literature represents the total achievements of the Indian people in different directions for such a long period, it must of necessity be of a diversified character. If we roughly classify this huge literature from the points of view of age, language, and subject matter, we can point out four different types, namely the Sa@mhita or collection of verses (_sam_ together, _hita_ put), Brahma@nas, Ara@nyakas (“forest treatises”) and the Upani@sads. All these literatures, both prose and verse, were looked upon as so holy that in early times it was thought almost a sacrilege to write them; they were therefore learnt by heart by the Brahmins from the mouth of their preceptors and were hence called _s’ruti_ (literally anything heard)[Footnote ref 1].
The Sa@mhitas.
There are four collections or Sa@mhitas, namely @Rg-Veda, Sama-Veda, Yajur-Veda and Atharva-Veda. Of these the @Rg-Veda is probably the earliest. The Sama-Veda has practically no independent value, for it consists of stanzas taken (excepting only 75) entirely from the @Rg-Veda, which were meant to be sung to certain fixed melodies, and may thus be called the book of chants. The Yajur-Veda however contains in addition to the verses taken from the @Rg-Veda many original prose formulas. The arrangement of the verses of the Sama-Veda is solely with reference to their place and use in the Soma sacrifice; the contents of the Yajur-Veda are arranged in the order in which the verses were actually employed in the various religious sacrifices. It is therefore called the Veda of Yajus–sacrificial prayers. These may be contrasted with the arrangement in the @Rg-Veda in this, that there the verses are generally arranged in accordance with the gods who are adored in them. Thus, for example, first we get all the poems addressed to Agni or the Fire-god, then all those to the god Indra and so on. The fourth collection, the Atharva-Veda, probably attained its present form considerably later than the @Rg-Veda. In spirit, however, as Professor Macdonell says, “It is not only entirely different from the _Rigveda_ but represents a much more primitive stage of thought. While the _Rigveda_ deals almost exclusively with the higher gods as conceived by a
_____________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: Pa@nini, III. iii. 94.]
13
comparatively advanced and refined sacerdotal class, the _Atharva-Veda_ is, in the main a book of spells and incantations appealing to the demon world, and teems with notions about witchcraft current among the lower grades of the population, and derived from an immemorial antiquity. These two, thus complementary to each other in contents are obviously the most important of the four Vedas [Footnote ref 1].”
The Brahma@nas. [Footnote ref 2]
After the Sa@mhitas there grew up the theological treatises called the Brahma@nas, which were of a distinctly different literary type. They are written in prose, and explain the sacred significance of the different rituals to those who are not already familiar with them. “They reflect,” says Professor Macdonell, “the spirit of an age in which all intellectual activity is concentrated on the sacrifice, describing its ceremonies, discussing its value, speculating on its origin and significance.” These works are full of dogmatic assertions, fanciful symbolism and speculations of an unbounded imagination in the field of sacrificial details. The sacrificial ceremonials were probably never so elaborate at the time when the early hymns were composed. But when the collections of hymns were being handed down from generation to generation the ceremonials became more and more complicated. Thus there came about the necessity of the distribution of the different sacrificial functions among several distinct classes of priests. We may assume that this was a period when the caste system was becoming established, and when the only thing which could engage wise and religious minds was sacrifice and its elaborate rituals. Free speculative thinking was thus subordinated to the service of the sacrifice, and the result was the production of the most fanciful sacramental and symbolic
____________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: A.A. Macdonell’s _History of Sanskrit Literature_, p. 31.]
[Footnote 2: Weber (_Hist. Ind. Lit_., p. 11, note) says that the word Brahma@na signifies “that which relates to prayer _brahman_.” Max Muller (_S.B.E._, I.p. lxvi) says that Brahma@na meant “originally the sayings of Brahmans, whether in the general sense of priests, or in the more special sense of Brahman-priests.” Eggeling (S.B.E. XII. Introd. p. xxii) says that the Brhama@nas were so called “probably either because they were intended for the instruction and guidance of priests (brahman) generally; or because they were, for the most part, the authoritative utterances of such as were thoroughly versed in Vedic and sacrificial lore and competent to act as Brahmans or superintending priests.” But in view of the fact that the Brahma@nas were also supposed to be as much revealed as the Vedas, the present writer thinks that Weber’s view is the correct one.]
14
system, unparalleled anywhere but among the Gnostics. It is now generally believed that the close of the Brahma@na period was not later than 500 B.C.
The Ara@nyakas.
As a further development of the Brahma@nas however we get the Ara@nyakas or forest treatises. These works were probably composed for old men who had retired into the forest and were thus unable to perform elaborate sacrifices requiring a multitude of accessories and articles which could not be procured in forests. In these, meditations on certain symbols were supposed to be of great merit, and they gradually began to supplant the sacrifices as being of a superior order. It is here that we find that amongst a certain section of intelligent people the ritualistic ideas began to give way, and philosophic speculations about the nature of truth became gradually substituted in their place. To take an illustration from the beginning of the B@rhadara@nyaka we find that instead of the actual performance of the horse sacrifice (_as’vamedha_) there are directions for meditating upon the dawn (_U@sas_) as the head of the horse, the sun as the eye of the horse, the air as its life, and so on. This is indeed a distinct advancement of the claims of speculation or meditation over the actual performance of the complicated ceremonials of sacrifice. The growth of the subjective speculation, as being capable of bringing the highest good, gradually resulted in the supersession of Vedic ritualism and the establishment of the claims of philosophic meditation and self-knowledge as the highest goal of life. Thus we find that the Ara@nyaka age was a period during which free thinking tried gradually to shake off the shackles of ritualism which had fettered it for a long time. It was thus that the Ara@nyakas could pave the way for the Upani@sads, revive the germs of philosophic speculation in the Vedas, and develop them in a manner which made the Upani@sads the source of all philosophy that arose in the world of Hindu thought.
The @Rg-Veda, its civilization.
The hymns of the @Rg-Veda are neither the productions of a single hand nor do they probably belong to any single age. They were composed probably at different periods by different sages, and it is not improbable that some of them were composed
15
before the Aryan people entered the plains of India. They were handed down from mouth to mouth and gradually swelled through the new additions that were made by the poets of succeeding generations. It was when the collection had increased to a very considerable extent that it was probably arranged in the present form, or in some other previous forms to which the present arrangement owes its origin. They therefore reflect the civilization of the Aryan people at different periods of antiquity before and after they had come to India. This unique monument of a long vanished age is of great aesthetic value, and contains much that is genuine poetry. It enables us to get an estimate of the primitive society which produced it–the oldest book of the Aryan race. The principal means of sustenance were cattle-keeping and the cultivation of the soil with plough and harrow, mattock and hoe, and watering the ground when necessary with artificial canals. “The chief food consists,” as Kaegi says, “together with bread, of various preparations of milk, cakes of flour and butter, many sorts of vegetables and fruits; meat cooked on the spits or in pots, is little used, and was probably eaten only at the great feasts and family gatherings. Drinking plays throughout a much more important part than eating [Footnote ref 1].” The wood-worker built war-chariots and wagons, as also more delicate carved works and artistic cups. Metal-workers, smiths and potters continued their trade. The women understood the plaiting of mats, weaving and sewing; they manufactured the wool of the sheep into clothing for men and covering for animals. The group of individuals forming a tribe was the highest political unit; each of the different families forming a tribe was under the sway of the father or the head of the family. Kingship was probably hereditary and in some cases electoral. Kingship was nowhere absolute, but limited by the will of the people. Most developed ideas of justice, right and law, were present in the country. Thus Kaegi says, “the hymns strongly prove how deeply the prominent minds in the people were persuaded that the eternal ordinances of the rulers of the world were as inviolable in mental and moral matters as in the realm of nature, and that every wrong act, even the unconscious, was punished and the sin expiated.”[Footnote ref 2] Thus it is only right and proper to think that the Aryans had attained a pretty high degree
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: _The Rigveda_, by Kaegi, 1886 edition, p. 13.]
[Footnote 2: _Ibid_. p. 18.]
16
of civilization, but nowhere was the sincere spirit of the Aryans more manifested than in religion, which was the most essential and dominant feature of almost all the hymns, except a few secular ones. Thus Kaegi says, “The whole significance of the Rigveda in reference to the general history of religion, as has repeatedly been pointed out in modern times, rests upon this, that it presents to us the development of religious conceptions from the earliest beginnings to the deepest apprehension of the godhead and its relation to man [Footnote ref 1].”
The Vedic Gods.
The hymns of the @Rg-Veda were almost all composed in praise of the gods. The social and other materials are of secondary importance, as these references had only to be mentioned incidentally in giving vent to their feelings of devotion to the god. The gods here are however personalities presiding over the diverse powers of nature or forming their very essence. They have therefore no definite, systematic and separate characters like the Greek gods or the gods of the later Indian mythical works, the Pura@nas. The powers of nature such as the storm, the rain, the thunder, are closely associated with one another, and the gods associated with them are also similar in character. The same epithets are attributed to different gods and it is only in a few specific qualities that they differ from one another. In the later mythological compositions of the Pura@nas the gods lost their character as hypostatic powers of nature, and thus became actual personalities and characters having their tales of joy and sorrow like the mortal here below. The Vedic gods may be contrasted with them in this, that they are of an impersonal nature, as the characters they display are mostly but expressions of the powers of nature. To take an example, the fire or Agni is described, as Kaegi has it, as one that “lies concealed in the softer wood, as in a chamber, until, called forth by the rubbing in the early morning hour, he suddenly springs forth in gleaming brightness. The sacrificer takes and lays him on the wood. When the priests pour melted butter upon him, he leaps up crackling and neighing like a horse–he whom men love to see increasing like their own prosperity. They wonder at him, when, decking himself with
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: _The Rigveda_, by Kaegi, p. 26.]
17
changing colors like a suitor, equally beautiful on all sides, he presents to all sides his front.
“All-searching is his beam, the gleaming of his light, His, the all-beautiful, of beauteous face and glance, The changing shimmer like that floats upon the stream, So Agni’s rays gleam over bright and never cease.”
[Footnote ref 1] R.V.I. 143. 3.
They would describe the wind (Vata) and adore him and say
“In what place was he born, and from whence comes he? The vital breath of gods, the world’s great offspring, The God where’er he will moves at his pleasure: His rushing sound we hear–what his appearance, no one.”
[Footnote ref 2] R.V.X. 168. 3, 4.
It was the forces of nature and her manifestations, on earth here, the atmosphere around and above us, or in the Heaven beyond the vault of the sky that excited the devotion and imagination of the Vedic poets. Thus with the exception of a few abstract gods of whom we shall presently speak and some dual divinities, the gods may be roughly classified as the terrestrial, atmospheric, and celestial.
Polytheism, Henotheism and Monotheism.
The plurality of the Vedic gods may lead a superficial enquirer to think the faith of the Vedic people polytheistic. But an intelligent reader will find here neither polytheism nor monotheism but a simple primitive stage of belief to which both of these may be said to owe their origin. The gods here do not preserve their proper places as in a polytheistic faith, but each one of them shrinks into insignificance or shines as supreme according as it is the object of adoration or not. The Vedic poets were the children of nature. Every natural phenomenon excited their wonder, admiration or veneration. The poet is struck with wonder that “the rough red cow gives soft white milk.” The appearance or the setting of the sun sends a thrill into the minds of the Vedic sage and with wonder-gazing eyes he exclaims:
“Undropped beneath, not fastened firm, how comes it That downward turned he falls not downward? The guide of his ascending path,–who saw it?”
[Footnote Ref 1] R.V. IV. 13. 5.
The sages wonder how “the sparkling waters of all rivers flow into one ocean without ever filling it.” The minds of the Vedic
____________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: _The Rigveda_, by Kaegi, p. 35.]
[Footnote 2: _Ibid_, p. 38.]
18
people as we find in the hymns were highly impressionable and fresh. At this stage the time was not ripe enough for them to accord a consistent and well-defined existence to the multitude of gods nor to universalize them in a monotheistic creed. They hypostatized unconsciously any force of nature that overawed them or filled them with gratefulness and joy by its beneficent or aesthetic character, and adored it. The deity which moved the devotion or admiration of their mind was the most supreme for the time. This peculiar trait of the Vedic hymns Max Muller has called Henotheism or Kathenotheism: “a belief in single gods, each in turn standing out as the highest. And since the gods are thought of as specially ruling in their own spheres, the singers, in their special concerns and desires, call most of all on that god to whom they ascribe the most power in the matter,–to whose department if I may say so, their wish belongs. This god alone is present to the mind of the suppliant; with him for the time being is associated everything that can be said of a divine being;–he is the highest, the only god, before whom all others disappear, there being in this, however, no offence or depreciation of any other god [Footnote ref 1].” “Against this theory it has been urged,” as Macdonell rightly says in his _Vedic Mythology_ [Footnote ref 2], “that Vedic deities are not represented as ‘independent of all the rest,’ since no religion brings its gods into more frequent and varied juxtaposition and combination, and that even the mightiest gods of the Veda are made dependent on others. Thus Varu@na and Surya are subordinate to Indra (I. 101), Varu@na and the As’vins submit to the power of Vi@s@nu (I. 156)….Even when a god is spoken of as unique or chief (_eka_), as is natural enough in laudations, such statements lose their temporarily monotheistic force, through the modifications or corrections supplied by the context or even by the same verse [Footnote Ref 3]. “Henotheism is therefore an appearance,” says Macdonell, “rather than a reality, an appearance produced by the indefiniteness due to undeveloped anthropomorphism, by the lack of any Vedic god occupying the position of a Zeus as the constant head of the pantheon, by the natural tendency of the priest or singer in extolling a particular god to exaggerate his greatness and to ignore other gods, and by the
____________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: _The Rigveda_, by Kaegi, p. 27.]
[Footnote 2: See _Ibid._ p. 33. See also Arrowsmith’s note on it for other references to Henotheism.]
[Footnote 3: Macdonell’s _Vedic Mythology_, pp. 16, 17.]
19
growing belief in the unity of the gods (cf. the refrain of 3, 35) each of whom might be regarded as a type of the divine [Footnote ref 1].” But whether we call it Henotheism or the mere temporary exaggeration of the powers of the deity in question, it is evident that this stage can neither be properly called polytheistic nor monotheistic, but one which had a tendency towards them both, although it was not sufficiently developed to be identified with either of them. The tendency towards extreme exaggeration could be called a monotheistic bias in germ, whereas the correlation of different deities as independent of one another and yet existing side by side was a tendency towards polytheism.
Growth of a Monotheistic tendency; Prajapati, Vis’vakarma.
This tendency towards extolling a god as the greatest and highest gradually brought forth the conception of a supreme Lord of all beings (Prajapati), not by a process of conscious generalization but as a necessary stage of development of the mind, able to imagine a deity as the repository of the highest moral and physical power, though its direct manifestation cannot be perceived. Thus the epithet Prajapati or the Lord of beings, which was originally an epithet for other deities, came to be recognized as a separate deity, the highest and the greatest. Thus it is said in R.V.x. 121 [Footnote Ref 2]:
In the beginning rose Hira@nyagarbha, Born as the only lord of all existence. This earth he settled firm and heaven established: What god shall we adore with our oblations? Who gives us breath, who gives us strength, whose bidding All creatures must obey, the bright gods even; Whose shade is death, whose shadow life immortal: What god shall we adore with our oblations? Who by his might alone became the monarch Of all that breathes, of all that wakes or slumbers, Of all, both man and beast, the lord eternal: What god shall we adore with our oblations? Whose might and majesty these snowy mountains, The ocean and the distant stream exhibit; Whose arms extended are these spreading regions: What god shall we adore with our oblations? Who made the heavens bright, the earth enduring, Who fixed the firmament, the heaven of heavens; Who measured out the air’s extended spaces: What god shall we adore with our oblations?
_________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: Macdonell’s _Vedic Mythology_, p. 17.]
[Footnote 2: _The Rigveda_, by Kaegi, pp. 88, 89.]
20
Similar attributes are also ascribed to the deity Vis’vakarma (All-creator) [Footnote ref 1]. He is said to be father and procreator of all beings, though himself uncreated. He generated the primitive waters. It is to him that the sage says,
Who is our father, our creator, maker, Who every place doth know and every creature, By whom alone to gods their names were given, To him all other creatures go to ask him [Footnote ref 2] R.V.x.82.3.
Brahma.
The conception of Brahman which has been the highest glory for the Vedanta philosophy of later days had hardly emerged in the @Rg-Veda from the associations of the sacrificial mind. The meanings that Saya@na the celebrated commentator of the Vedas gives of the word as collected by Haug are: (_a_) food, food offering, (_b_) the chant of the sama-singer, (_c_) magical formula or text, (_d_) duly completed ceremonies, (_e_) the chant and sacrificial gift together, (_f_) the recitation of the hot@r priest, (_g_) great. Roth says that it also means “the devotion which manifests itself as longing and satisfaction of the soul and reaches forth to the gods.” But it is only in the S’atapatha Brahma@na that the conception of Brahman has acquired a great significance as the supreme principle which is the moving force behind the gods. Thus the S’atapatha says, “Verily in the beginning this (universe) was the Brahman (neut.). It created the gods; and, having created the gods, it made them ascend these worlds: Agni this (terrestrial) world, Vayu the air, and Surya the sky…. Then the Brahman itself went up to the sphere beyond. Having gone up to the sphere beyond, it considered, ‘How can I descend again into these worlds?’ It then descended again by means of these two, Form and Name. Whatever has a name, that is name; and that again which has no name and which one knows by its form, ‘this is (of a certain) form,’ that is form: as far as there are Form and Name so far, indeed, extends this (universe). These indeed are the two great forces of Brahman; and, verily, he who knows these two great forces of Brahman becomes himself a great force [Footnote ref 3]. In another place Brahman is said to be the ultimate thing in the Universe and is identified with Prajapati, Puru@sa and Pra@na
__________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: See _The Rigveda_, by Kaegi, p. 89, and also Muir’s _Sanskrit Texts_, vol. IV. pp. 5-11.]
[Footnote 2: Kaegi’s translation.]
[Footnote 3: See Eggeling’s translation of S’atapatha Brahmana _S.B.E._ vol. XLIV. pp. 27, 28.]
21
(the vital air [Footnote ref 1]). In another place Brahman is described as being the Svayambhu (self-born) performing austerities, who offered his own self in the creatures and the creatures in his own self, and thus compassed supremacy, sovereignty and lordship over all creatures [Footnote ref 2]. The conception of the supreme man (Puru@sa) in the @Rg-Veda also supposes that the supreme man pervades the world with only a fourth part of Himself, whereas the remaining three parts transcend to a region beyond. He is at once the present, past and future [Footnote ref 3].
Sacrifice; the First Rudiments of the Law of Karma.
It will however be wrong to suppose that these monotheistic tendencies were gradually supplanting the polytheistic sacrifices. On the other hand, the complications of ritualism were gradually growing in their elaborate details. The direct result of this growth contributed however to relegate the gods to a relatively unimportant position, and to raise the dignity of the magical characteristics of the sacrifice as an institution which could give the desired fruits of themselves. The offerings at a sacrifice were not dictated by a devotion with which we are familiar under Christian or Vai@s@nava influence. The sacrifice taken as a whole is conceived as Haug notes “to be a kind of machinery in which every piece must tally with the other,” the slightest discrepancy in the performance of even a minute ritualistic detail, say in the pouring of the melted butter on the fire, or the proper placing of utensils employed in the sacrifice, or even the misplacing of a mere straw contrary to the injunctions was sufficient to spoil the whole sacrifice with whatsoever earnestness it might be performed. Even if a word was mispronounced the most dreadful results might follow. Thus when Tva@s@t@r performed a sacrifice for the production of a demon who would be able to kill his enemy Indra, owing to the mistaken accent of a single word the object was reversed and the demon produced was killed by Indra. But if the sacrifice could be duly performed down to the minutest detail, there was no power which could arrest or delay the fruition of the object. Thus the objects of a sacrifice were fulfilled not by the grace of the gods, but as a natural result of the sacrifice. The performance of the rituals invariably produced certain mystic or magical results by virtue of which the object desired
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: See _S.B.E._ XLIII. pp.59,60,400 and XLIV. p.409.]
[Footnote 2: See _Ibid_., XLIV, p. 418.]
[Footnote 3: R.V.x.90, Puru@sa Sukta.]
22
by the sacrificer was fulfilled in due course like the fulfilment of a natural law in the physical world. The sacrifice was believed to have existed from eternity like the Vedas. The creation of the world itself was even regarded as the fruit of a sacrifice performed by the supreme Being. It exists as Haug says “as an invisible thing at all times and is like the latent power of electricity in an electrifying machine, requiring only the operation of a suitable apparatus in order to be elicited.” The sacrifice is not offered to a god with a view to propitiate him or to obtain from him welfare on earth or bliss in Heaven; these rewards are directly produced by the sacrifice itself through the correct performance of complicated and interconnected ceremonies which constitute the sacrifice. Though in each sacrifice certain gods were invoked and received the offerings, the gods themselves were but instruments in bringing about the sacrifice or in completing the course of mystical ceremonies composing it. Sacrifice is thus regarded as possessing a mystical potency superior even to the gods, who it is sometimes stated attained to their divine rank by means of sacrifice. Sacrifice was regarded as almost the only kind of duty, and it was also called _karma_ or _kriya_ (action) and the unalterable law was, that these mystical ceremonies for good or for bad, moral or immoral (for there were many kinds of sacrifices which were performed for injuring one’s enemies or gaining worldly prosperity or supremacy at the cost of others) were destined to produce their effects. It is well to note here that the first recognition of a cosmic order or law prevailing in nature under the guardianship of the highest gods is to be found in the use of the word @Rta (literally the course of things). This word was also used, as Macdonell observes, to denote the “‘order’ in the moral world as truth and ‘right’ and in the religious world as sacrifice or ‘rite'[Footnote ref 1]” and its unalterable law of producing effects. It is interesting to note in this connection that it is here that we find the first germs of the law of karma, which exercises such a dominating control over Indian thought up to the present day. Thus we find the simple faith and devotion of the Vedic hymns on one hand being supplanted by the growth of a complex system of sacrificial rites, and on the other bending their course towards a monotheistic or philosophic knowledge of the ultimate reality of the universe.
____________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: Macdonell’s _Vedic Mythology_, p. 11.]
23
Cosmogony–Mythological and philosophical.
The cosmogony of the @Rg-Veda may be looked at from two aspects, the mythological and the philosophical. The mythological aspect has in general two currents, as Professor Macdonell says, “The one regards the universe as the result of mechanical production, the work of carpenter’s and joiner’s skill; the other represents it as the result of natural generation [Footnote ref. 1].” Thus in the @Rg-Veda we find that the poet in one place says, “what was the wood and what was the tree out of which they built heaven and earth [Footnote ref. 2]?” The answer given to this question in Taittiriya-Brahma@na is “Brahman the wood and Brahman the tree from which the heaven and earth were made [Footnote ref 3].” Heaven and Earth are sometimes described as having been supported with posts [Footnote ref 4]. They are also sometimes spoken of as universal parents, and parentage is sometimes attributed to Aditi and Dak@sa.
Under this philosophical aspect the semi-pantheistic Man-hymn [Footnote ref 5] attracts our notice. The supreme man as we have already noticed above is there said to be the whole universe, whatever has been and shall be; he is the lord of immortality who has become diffused everywhere among things animate and inanimate, and all beings came out of him; from his navel came the atmosphere; from his head arose the sky; from his feet came the earth; from his ear the four quarters. Again there are other hymns in which the Sun is called the soul (_atman_) of all that is movable and all that is immovable [Footnote ref 6]. There are also statements to the effect that the Being is one, though it is called by many names by the sages [Footnote ref 7]. The supreme being is sometimes extolled as the supreme Lord of the world called the golden egg (Hira@nyagarbha [Footnote ref 8]). In some passages it is said “Brahma@naspati blew forth these births like a blacksmith. In the earliest age of the gods, the existent sprang from the non-existent. In the first age of the gods, the existent sprang from the non-existent: thereafter the regions sprang, thereafter, from Uttanapada [Footnote ref 9].” The most remarkable and sublime hymn in which the first germs of philosophic speculation
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: Macdonell’s _Vedic Mythology_, p. 11.]
[Footnote 2: R.V.x. 81. 4.]
[Footnote 3: Taitt. Br. II. 8. 9. 6.]
[Footnote 4: Macdonell’s _Vedic Mythology_, p. 11; also R.V. II. 15 and IV. 56.]
[Footnote 5: R.V.x. 90.]
[Footnote 6: R.V.I. 115.]
[Footnote 7: R.V.I. 164. 46.]
[Footnote 8: R.V.X. 121.]
[Footnote 9: Muir’s translation of R.V.x. 72; Muir’s _Sanskrit Texts_, vol. v.p. 48.]
24
with regard to the wonderful mystery of the origin of the world are found is the 129th hymn of R.V.x.
1. Then there was neither being nor not-being. The atmosphere was not, nor sky above it. What covered all? and where? by what protected? Was there the fathomless abyss of waters?
2. Then neither death nor deathless existed; Of day and night there was yet no distinction. Alone that one breathed calmly, self-supported, Other than It was none, nor aught above It.
3. Darkness there was at first in darkness hidden; The universe was undistinguished water. That which in void and emptiness lay hidden Alone by power of fervor was developed.
4. Then for the first time there arose desire, Which was the primal germ of mind, within it. And sages, searching in their heart, discovered In Nothing the connecting bond of Being.
6. Who is it knows? Who here can tell us surely From what and how this universe has risen? And whether not till after it the gods lived? Who then can know from what it has arisen?
7. The source from which this universe has risen, And whether it was made, or uncreated, He only knows, who from the highest heaven Rules, the all-seeing lord–or does not He know [Footnote ref 1]?
The earliest commentary on this is probably a passage in the S’atapatha Brahma@na (x. 5. 3.I) which says that “in the beginning this (universe) was as it were neither non-existent nor existent; in the beginning this (universe) was as it were, existed and did not exist: there was then only that Mind. Wherefore it has been declared by the Rishi (@Rg-Veda X. 129. I), ‘There was then neither the non-existent nor the existent’ for Mind was, as it were, neither existent nor non-existent. This Mind when created, wished to become manifest,–more defined, more substantial: it sought after a self (a body); it practised austerity: it acquired consistency [Footnote ref 2].” In the Atharva-Veda also we find it stated that all forms of the universe were comprehended within the god Skambha [Footnote ref 3].
Thus we find that even in the period of the Vedas there sprang forth such a philosophic yearning, at least among some who could
____________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: _The Rigveda_, by Kaegi, p. 90. R.V.x. 129.]
[Footnote 2: See Eggeling’s translation of _S’.B., S.B.E._ vol. XLIII. pp. 374, 375.]
[Footnote 3: _A.V._ x. 7. 10.]
25
question whether this universe was at all a creation or not, which could think of the origin of the world as being enveloped in the mystery of a primal non-differentiation of being and non-being; and which could think that it was the primal One which by its inherent fervour gave rise to the desire of a creation as the first manifestation of the germ of mind, from which the universe sprang forth through a series of mysterious gradual processes. In the Brahma@nas, however, we find that the cosmogonic view generally requires the agency of a creator, who is not however always the starting point, and we find that the theory of evolution is combined with the theory of creation, so that Prajapati is sometimes spoken of as the creator while at other times the creator is said to have floated in the primeval water as a cosmic golden egg.
Eschatology; the Doctrine of Atman.
There seems to be a belief in the Vedas that the soul could be separated from the body in states of swoon, and that it could exist after death, though we do not find there any trace of the doctrine of transmigration in a developed form. In the S’atapatha Brahma@na it is said that those who do not perform rites with correct knowledge are born again after death and suffer death again. In a hymn of the @Rg-Veda (X. 58) the soul (_manas_) of a man apparently unconscious is invited to come back to him from the trees, herbs, the sky, the sun, etc. In many of the hymns there is also the belief in the existence of another world, where the highest material joys are attained as a result of the performance of the sacrifices and also in a hell of darkness underneath where the evil-doers are punished. In the S’atapatha Brahma@na we find that the dead pass between two fires which burn the evil-doers, but let the good go by [Footnote ref 1]; it is also said there that everyone is born again after death, is weighed in a balance, and receives reward or punishment according as his works are good or bad. It is easy to see that scattered ideas like these with regard to the destiny of the soul of man according to the sacrifice that he performs or other good or bad deeds form the first rudiments of the later doctrine of metempsychosis. The idea that man enjoys or suffers, either in another world or by being born in this world according to his good or bad deeds, is the first beginning of the moral idea, though in the Brahmanic days the good deeds were
_____________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: See _S.B._ I. 9.3, and also Macdonell’s _Vedic Mythology_, pp. 166, 167.]
26
more often of the nature of sacrificial duties than ordinary good works. These ideas of the possibilities of a necessary connection of the enjoyments and sorrows of a man with his good and bad works when combined with the notion of an inviolable law or order, which we have already seen was gradually growing with the conception of @rta, and the unalterable law which produces the effects of sacrificial works, led to the Law of Karma and the doctrine of transmigration. The words which denote soul in the @Rg-Veda are _manas_, _atman_ and _asu_. The word _atman_ however which became famous in later Indian thought is generally used to mean vital breath. Manas is regarded as the seat of thought and emotion, and it seems to be regarded, as Macdonell says, as dwelling in the heart[Footnote ref 1]. It is however difficult to understand how atman as vital breath, or as a separable part of man going out of the dead man came to be regarded as the ultimate essence or reality in man and the universe. There is however at least one passage in the @Rg-Veda where the poet penetrating deeper and deeper passes from the vital breath (_asu_) to the blood, and thence to atman as the inmost self of the world; “Who has seen how the first-born, being the Bone-possessing (the shaped world), was born from the Boneless (the shapeless)? where was the vital breath, the blood, the Self (_atman_) of the world? Who went to ask him that knows it [Footnote ref 2]?” In Taittirya Ara@nyaka I. 23, however, it is said that Prajapati after having created his self (as the world) with his own self entered into it. In Taittirya Brahma@na the atman is called omnipresent, and it is said that he who knows him is no more stained by evil deeds. Thus we find that in the pre-Upani@sad Vedic literature atman probably was first used to denote “vital breath” in man, then the self of the world, and then the self in man. It is from this last stage that we find the traces of a growing tendency to looking at the self of man as the omnipresent supreme principle of the universe, the knowledge of which makes a man sinless and pure.
Conclusion.
Looking at the advancement of thought in the @Rg-Veda we find first that a fabric of thought was gradually growing which not only looked upon the universe as a correlation of parts or a
____________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: Macdonell’s _Vedic Mythology_, p.166 and R.V. viii.89.]
[Footnote 2: R.V.i. 164. 4 and Deussen’s article on Atman in _Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics_.
27
construction made of them, but sought to explain it as having emanated from one great being who is sometimes described as one with the universe and surpassing it, and at other times as being separate from it; the agnostic spirit which is the mother of philosophic thought is seen at times to be so bold as to express doubts even on the most fundamental questions of creation–“Who knows whether this world was ever created or not?” Secondly the growth of sacrifices has helped to establish the unalterable nature of the law by which the (sacrificial) actions produced their effects of themselves. It also lessened the importance of deities as being the supreme masters of the world and our fate, and the tendency of henotheism gradually diminished their multiple character and advanced the monotheistic tendency in some quarters. Thirdly, the soul of man is described as being separable from his body and subject to suffering and enjoyment in another world according to his good or bad deeds; the doctrine that the soul of man could go to plants, etc., or that it could again be reborn on earth, is also hinted at in certain passages, and this may be regarded as sowing the first seeds of the later doctrine of transmigration. The self (_atman_) is spoken of in one place as the essence of the world, and when we trace the idea in the Brahma@nas and the Ara@nyakas we see that atman has begun to mean the supreme essence in man as well as in the universe, and has thus approached the great Atman doctrine of the Upani@sads.
CHAPTER III
THE EARLIER UPANI@SADS [Footnote ref 1]. (700 B.C.-600 B.C.)
The place of the Upani@sads in Vedic literature.
Though it is generally held that the Upani@sads are usually attached as appendices to the Ara@nyakas which are again attached to the Brahma@nas, yet it cannot be said that their distinction as separate treatises is always observed. Thus we find in some cases that subjects which we should expect to be discussed in a Brahma@na are introduced into the Ara@nyakas and the Ara@nyaka materials are sometimes fused into the great bulk of Upani@sad teaching. This shows that these three literatures gradually grew up in one
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: There are about 112 Upani@sads which have been published by the “Nir@naya-Sagara” Press, Bombay, 1917. These are 1 Isa, 2 Kena, 3 Katha, 4 Pras’na, 5 Mun@daka, 6 Ma@n@dukya, 7 Taittiriya, 7 Aitareya, 9 Chandogya, 10 B@rhadara@nyaka, 11 S’vetas’vatara, 12 Kau@sitaki, 13 Maitreyi, 14 Kaivalya, 15 Jabala, 16 Brahmabindu, 17 Ha@msa, 18 Aru@nika, 19 Garbha, 20 Naraya@na, 21 Naraya@na, 22 Paramaha@msa, 23 Brahma, 24 Am@rtanada, 25 Atharvas’iras, 26 Atharvas’ikha, 27 Maitraya@ni, 28 B@rhajjabala, 29 N@rsi@mhapurvatapini, 30 N@rsi@mhottaratapini, 31 Kalagnirudra, 32 Subala, 33 K@surika, 34 Yantrika, 35 Sarvasara, 36 Niralamba, 37 S’ukarahasya, 38 Vajrasucika, 39 Tejobindu, 40 Nadabindu, 41 Dhyanabindu, 42 Brahmavidya, 43 Yogatattva, 44 Atmabodha, 45 Naradaparivrajaka, 46 Tris’ikhibrahma@na, 47 Sita, 48 Yogacu@dama@ni, 49 Nirvana, 50 Ma@ndalabrahma@na, 51 Dak@si@namurtti, 52 S’arabha, 53 Skanda, 54 Tripadvibhutimahanarya@na, 55 Advayataraka, 56 Ramarahasya, 57 Ramapurvatapini, 58 Ramottaratapini, 59 Vasudeva, 60 Mudgala, 61 Sa@n@dilya, 62 Pai@ngala, 63 Bhik@suka, Maha, 65 S’ariraka, 66 Yogas’ikha, 67 Turiyatita, 68 Sa@mnyasa, 69 Paramaha@msaparivrajaka, 70 Ak@samala, 71 Avyakta, 72 Ekak@sara, 73 Annapurna, 74 Surya, 75 Aksi, 76 Adhyatma, 77 Ku@n@dika, 78 Savitri, 79 Atman, 80 Pa’supatabrahma, 81 Parabrahma, 82 Avadhuta, 83 Tripurarapini, 84 Devi, 85 Tripura, 86 Ka@tharudra, 87 Bhavana, 88 Rudrah@rdaya, 89 Yogaku@n@dali, 90 Bhasmajabala, 91 Rudrak@sajabala, 92 Ga@napati, 93 Jabaladars’ana, 94 Taiasara, 95 Mahavakya, 96 Paficabrahma, 97 Pra@nagnihotra, 98 Gopalapurvatapini, 99 Gopalottaratapini, 100 K@r@s@na, 101 Yajnavalkya, 102 Varaha, 103 S’athyayaniya, 104 Hayagriva, 105 Dattatreya, 106 Garu@da, 107 Kalisantara@na, 108 Jabali, 109 Saubhagyalak@smi, 110 Sarasvatirahasya, 111 Bahvrca, 112 Muktika.
The collection of Upani@sads translated by Dara shiko, Aurangzeb’s brother, contained 50 Upani@sads. The Muktika Upani@sad gives a list of 108 Upani@sads. With the exception of the first 13 Upani@sads most of them are of more or less later date. The Upani@sads dealt with in this chapter are the earlier ones. Amongst the later ones there are some which repeat the purport of these, there are others which deal with the S’aiva, S’akta, the Yoga and the Vai@s@nava doctrines. These will be referred to in connection with the consideration of those systems in Volume II. The later Upani@sads which only repeat the purport of those dealt with in this chapter do not require further mention. Some of the later Upani@sads were composed even as late as the fourteenth or the fifteenth century.]
29
process of development and they were probably regarded as parts of one literature, in spite of the differences in their subject-matter. Deussen supposes that the principle of this division was to be found in this, that the Brahma@nas were intended for the householders, the Ara@nyakas for those who in their old age withdrew into the solitude of the forests and the Upani@sads for those who renounced the world to attain ultimate salvation by meditation. Whatever might be said about these literary classifications the ancient philosophers of India looked upon the Upani@sads as being of an entirely different type from the rest of the Vedic literature as dictating the path of knowledge (_jnana-marga_) as opposed to the path of works (_karma-marga_) which forms the content of the latter. It is not out of place here to mention that the orthodox Hindu view holds that whatever may be written in the Veda is to be interpreted as commandments to perform certain actions (_vidhi_) or prohibitions against committing certain others (_ni@sedha_). Even the stories or episodes are to be so interpreted that the real objects of their insertion might appear as only to praise the performance of the commandments and to blame the commission of the prohibitions. No person has any right to argue why any particular Vedic commandment is to be followed, for no reason can ever discover that, and it is only because reason fails to find out why a certain Vedic act leads to a certain effect that the Vedas have been revealed as commandments and prohibitions to show the true path of happiness. The Vedic teaching belongs therefore to that of the Karma-marga or the performance of Vedic duties of sacrifice, etc. The Upani@sads however do not require the performance of any action, but only reveal the ultimate truth and reality, a knowledge of which at once emancipates a man. Readers of Hindu philosophy are aware that there is a very strong controversy on this point between the adherents of the Vedanta (_Upani@sads_) and those of the Veda. For the latter seek in analogy to the other parts of the Vedic literature to establish the principle that the Upani@sads should not be regarded as an exception, but that they should also be so interpreted that they might also be held out as commending the performance of duties; but the former dissociate the Upani@sads from the rest of the Vedic literature and assert that they do not make the slightest reference to any Vedic duties, but only delineate the ultimate reality which reveals the highest knowledge in the minds of the deserving.
30
S’a@nkara the most eminent exponent of the Upani@sads holds that they are meant for such superior men who are already above worldly or heavenly prosperities, and for whom the Vedic duties have ceased to have any attraction. Wheresoever there may be such a deserving person, be he a student, a householder or an ascetic, for him the Upani@sads have been revealed for his ultimate emancipation and the true knowledge. Those who perform the Vedic duties belong to a stage inferior to those who no longer care for the fruits of the Vedic duties but are eager for final emancipation, and it is the latter who alone are fit to hear the Upani@sads [Footnote ref 1].
The names of the Upani@sads; Non-Brahmanic influence.
The Upani@sads are also known by another name Vedanta, as they are believed to be the last portions of the Vedas (_veda-anta_, end); it is by this name that the philosophy of the Upani@sads, the Vedanta philosophy, is so familiar to us. A modern student knows that in language the Upani@sads approach the classical Sanskrit; the ideas preached also show that they are the culmination of the intellectual achievement of a great epoch. As they thus formed the concluding parts of the Vedas they retained their Vedic names which they took from the name of the different schools or branches (_s’akha_) among which the Vedas were studied [Footnote ref 2]. Thus the Upani@sads attached to the Brahma@nas of the Aitareya and Kau@sitaki schools are called respectively Aitareya and Kau@sitaki Upani@sads. Those of the Ta@n@dins and Talavakaras of the Sama-veda are called the Chandogya and Talavakara (or Kena) Upani@sads. Those of the Taittiriya school of the Yajurveda
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: This is what is called the difference of fitness (_adhikaribheda_). Those who perform the sacrifices are not fit to hear the Upani@sads and those who are fit to hear the Upani@sads have no longer any necessity to perform the sacrificial duties.]
[Footnote 2: When the Sa@mhita texts had become substantially fixed, they were committed to memory in different parts of the country and transmitted from teacher to pupil along with directions for the practical performance of sacrificial duties. The latter formed the matter of prose compositions, the Brahma@nas. These however were gradually liable to diverse kinds of modifications according to the special tendencies and needs of the people among which they were recited. Thus after a time there occurred a great divergence in the readings of the texts of the Brahma@nas even of the same Veda among different people. These different schools were known by the name of particular S’akhas (e.g. Aitareya, Kau@sitaki) with which the Brahma@nas were associated or named. According to the divergence of the Brahma@nas of the different S’akhas there occurred the divergences of content and the length of the Upani@sads associated with them.]
31
form the Taittiriya and Mahanaraya@na, of the Ka@tha school the Ka@thaka, of the Maitraya@ni school the Maitraya@ni. The B@rhadara@nyaka Upani@sad forms part of the S’atapatha Brahma@na of the Vajasaneyi schools. The Is’a Upani@sad also belongs to the latter school. But the school to which the S’vetas’vatara belongs cannot be traced, and has probably been lost. The presumption with regard to these Upani@sads is that they represent the enlightened views of the particular schools among which they flourished, and under whose names they passed. A large number of Upani@sads of a comparatively later age were attached to the Atharva-Veda, most of which were named not according to the Vedic schools but according to the subject-matter with which they dealt [Footnote ref 1].
It may not be out of place here to mention that from the frequent episodes in the Upani@sads in which the Brahmins are described as having gone to the K@sattriyas for the highest knowledge of philosophy, as well as from the disparateness of the Upani@sad teachings from that of the general doctrines of the Brahma@nas and from the allusions to the existence of philosophical speculations amongst the people in Pali works, it may be inferred that among the K@sattriyas in general there existed earnest philosophic enquiries which must be regarded as having exerted an important influence in the formation of the Upani@sad doctrines. There is thus some probability in the supposition that though the Upani@sads are found directly incorporated with the Brahma@nas it was not the production of the growth of Brahmanic dogmas alone, but that non-Brahmanic thought as well must have either set the Upani@sad doctrines afoot, or have rendered fruitful assistance to their formulation and cultivation, though they achieved their culmination in the hands of the Brahmins.
Brahma@nas and the Early Upani@sads.
The passage of the Indian mind from the Brahmanic to the Upani@sad thought is probably the most remarkable event in the history of philosophic thought. We know that in the later Vedic hymns some monotheistic conceptions of great excellence were developed, but these differ in their nature from the absolutism of the Upani@sads as much as the Ptolemaic and the Copernican
_____________________________________________________________________