{"collection":"Hinduism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/hin/sbe01/sbe01019.htm","path":"hin/sbe01/sbe01019.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe01/sbe01019.htm","text":"The Upanishads, Part 1 (SBE01), by Max M\u00fcller, [1879]\nIN giving a translation of the Aitareya-upanishad, I found it necessary to give at the same time a translation of that portion of the Aitareya-\u00e2ranyaka which precedes the Upanishad. The \u00c2ranyakas seem to have been from the beginning the proper repositories of the ancient Upanishads, though it is difficult at first sight to find out in what relation the Upanishads stood to the \u00c2ranyakas. The \u00c2ranyakas are to be read and studied, not in the village (gr\u00e2me), but in the forest, and so are the Upanishads. But the subjects treated in the Upanishads belong to a very different order from those treated in the other portions of the \u00c2ranyakas, the former being philosophical, the latter liturgical.\nThe liturgical chapters of the \u00c2ranyakas might quite as well have formed part of the Br\u00e2hmanas, and but for the restriction that they are to be read in the forest, it is difficult to distinguish between them and the Br\u00e2hmanas. The\nfirst chapter of the Aitareya-\u00e2ranyaka is a mere continuation of the Aitareya-br\u00e2hmana, and gives the description of the Mah\u00e2vrata, the last day but one of the Gav\u00e2mayana, a sattra or sacrifice which is supposed to last a whole year. The duties which are to be performed by the Hotri priests are described in the Aitareya-\u00e2ranyaka; not all, however, but those only which are peculiar to the Mah\u00e2vrata day. The general rules for the performance of the Mah\u00e2vrata are to be taken over from other sacrifices, such as the Visvagit, Katurvimsa, &c., which form the type (prakriti) of the Mah\u00e2vrata. Thus the two sastras or recitations, called \u00e2gya-pra\u00fcga, are taken over from the Visvagit, the sastras of the Hotrakas from the Katurvimsa. The Mah\u00e2vrata is treated here as belonging to the Gav\u00e2mayana sattra, which is described in a different S\u00e2kh\u00e2, see Taittir\u00eeya Samhit\u00e2 VII, 5, 8, and partly in other Vedas. It is the day preceding the udayan\u00eeya, the last day of the sattra. It can be celebrated, however, by itself also, as an ek\u00e2ha or ah\u00eena sacrifice, and in the latter case it is the tenth day of the Ekadasar\u00e2tra (eleven nights sacrifice) called Pundar\u00eeka.\nS\u00e2yana does not hesitate to speak of the Aitareya-\u00c2ranyaka as a part of the Br\u00e2hmana 1; and a still earlier authority, Sa\u1e45kara, by calling the Aitareya-upanishad by the name of Bahvrika-br\u00e2hmana-upanishad 2, seems to imply that both the Upanishad and the \u00c2ranyaka may be classed as Br\u00e2hmana.\nThe Aitareya-\u00c2ranyaka appears at first sight a miscellaneous work, consisting of liturgical treatises in the first, fourth, and fifth \u00c2ranyakas, and of three Upanishads, in the second and third \u00c2ranyakas. This, however, is not the case. The first \u00c2ranyaka is purely liturgical, giving a description of the Mah\u00e2vrata, so far as it concerns the Hotri priest. It is written in the ordinary Br\u00e2hmana style. Then follows the first Upanishad, \u00c2ranyaka II, 1-3, showing\nhow certain portions of the Mah\u00e2vrata, as described in the first \u00c2ranyaka, can be made to suggest a deeper meaning, and ought to lead the mind of the sacrificer away from the purely outward ceremonial to meditation on higher subjects. Without a knowledge of the first \u00c2ranyaka therefore the first Upanishad would be almost unintelligible, and though its translation was extremely tedious, it could not well have been omitted.\nThe second and third Upanishads are not connected with the ceremonial of the Mah\u00e2vrata, but in the fourth and fifth \u00c2ranyakas the Mah\u00e2vrata forms again the principal subject, treated, however, not as before in the style of the Br\u00e2hmanas, but in the style of S\u00fbtras. The fourth \u00c2ranyaka contains nothing but a list of the Mah\u00e2n\u00e2mn\u00ee hymns 1, but the fifth describes the Mah\u00e2vrata again, so that if the first \u00c2ranyaka may be looked upon as a portion of the Aitareya-br\u00e2hmanas, the fifth could best be classed with the S\u00fbtras of \u00c2sval\u00e2yana.\nTo a certain extent this fact, the composite character of the Aitareya-\u00c2ranyaka, is recognised even by native scholars, who generally do not trouble themselves much on such questions. They look both on the Aitareya-br\u00e2hmana and on the greater portion of Aitareya-\u00c2ranyaka as the works of an inspired Rishi, Mahid\u00e2sa Aitareya 2, but they consider the fourth and fifth books of the \u00c2ranyaka as contributed by purely human authors, such as \u00c2sval\u00e2yana and Saunaka, who, like other S\u00fbtrak\u00e2ras, took in verses belonging to other S\u00e2kh\u00e2s, and did not confine their rules to their own S\u00e2kh\u00e2 only.\nThere are many legends about Mahid\u00e2sa, the reputed author of the Aitareya-br\u00e2hmana and \u00c2ranyaka. He is\nquoted several times as Mahid\u00e2sa Aitareya in the \u00c2ranyaka itself, though not in the Br\u00e2hmana. We also meet his name in the Kh\u00e2ndogya-upanishad (III, 16, 7), where we are told that he lived to an age of 116 years 1. All this, however, would only prove that, at the time of the composition or collection of these \u00c2ranyakas and Upanishads, a sage was known of the name of Mahid\u00e2sa Aitareya, descended possibly from Itara or Itar\u00e2. and that one text of the Br\u00e2hmanas and the \u00c2ranyakas of the Bahvrikas was handed down in the family of the Aitareyins.\nNot content with this apparently very obvious explanation, later theologians tried to discover their own reasons for the name of Aitareya. Thus S\u00e2yana, in his introduction to the Aitareya-br\u00e2hmana 2, tells us that there was once a Rishi who had many wives. One of them was called Itar\u00e2, and she had a son called Mahid\u00e2sa. His father preferred the sons of his other wives to Mahid\u00e2sa, and once he insulted him in the sacrificial hall, by placing his other sons on his lap, but not Mahid\u00e2sa. Mahid\u00e2sa's mother, seeing her son with tears in his eyes, prayed to her tutelary goddess, the Earth (sv\u00eeyakuladevat\u00e2 Bh\u00fbmih), and the goddess in her heavenly form appeared in the midst of the assembly, placed Mahid\u00e2sa on a throne, and on account of his learning, gave him the gift of knowing the Br\u00e2hmana, consisting of forty adhy\u00e2yas, and, as S\u00e2yana calls it, another Br\u00e2hmana, 'treating of the \u00c2ranyaka duties' (\u00e2ranyakavratar\u00fbpam br\u00e2hmanam).\nWithout attaching much value to the legend of Itar\u00e2, we see at all events that S\u00e2yana considered what we call the Aitarey\u00e2ranyaka as a kind of Br\u00e2hmana, not however the whole of it, but only the first, second, and third \u00c2ranyakas (atha mah\u00e2vratam \u00eety\u00e2dikam \u00e2k\u00e2ry\u00e2 \u00e2k\u00e2ry\u00e2 ityantam). How easy it was for Hindu theologians to invent such legends we see from another account of Mahid\u00e2sa, given by \u00c2nandat\u00eertha in his notes on the Aitareya-upanishad.\n[paragraph continues] He, as Colebrooke was the first to point out, takes Mahid\u00e2sa 'to be an incarnation of N\u00e2r\u00e2yana, proceeding from Vis\u00e2la, son of Abga,' and he adds, that on the sudden appearance of this deity at a solemn celebration, the whole assembly of gods and priests (suraviprasa\u1e45gha) fainted, but at the intercession of Brahm\u00e2, they were revived, and after making their obeisance, they were instructed in holy science. This avat\u00e2ra was called Mahid\u00e2sa, because those venerable personages (mahin) declared themselves to be his slaves (d\u00e2sa) 1.\nIn order properly to understand this legend, we must remember that \u00c2nandat\u00eertha, or rather Visvesvarat\u00eertha, whose commentary he explains, treated the whole of the Mahaitareya-upanishad from a Vaishnava point of view, and that his object was to identify Mahid\u00e2sa with N\u00e2r\u00e2yana. He therefore represents N\u00e2r\u00e2yana or Hari as the avat\u00e2ra of Vis\u00e2la, the son of Brahman (abgasuta), who appeared at a sacrifice, as described before, who received then and there the name of Mahid\u00e2sa (or Mah\u00eed\u00e2sa), and who taught this Upanishad. Any other person besides Mahid\u00e2sa would have been identified with the same ease by Visvesvarat\u00eertha with Vishnu or Bhagavat.\nA third legend has been made up out of these two by European scholars who represent Mahid\u00e2sa as the son of Vis\u00e2la and Itar\u00e2, two persons who probably never met before, for even the Vaishnava commentator does not attempt to take liberties with the name of Aitareya, but simply states that the Upanishad was called Aitarey\u00ee, from Aitareya.\nLeaving these legends for what they are worth, we may at all events retain the fact that, whoever was the author of the Aitareya-br\u00e2hmana and the first three books of the Aitareya-\u00c2ranyaka, was not the author of the two concluding \u00c2ranyakas. And this is confirmed in different ways. S\u00e2yana, when quoting in his commentary on the Rig-veda from the last books, constantly calls it a S\u00fbtra of Saunaka, while the fourth \u00c2ranyaka is specially ascribed\nto \u00c2sval\u00e2yana, the pupil and successor of Saunaka 1. These two names of Saunaka and \u00c2sval\u00e2yana are frequently intermixed. If, however, in certain MSS. the whole of the Aitareya-\u00e2ranyaka is sometimes ascribed either to \u00c2sval\u00e2yana or Saunaka, this is more probably due to the colophon of the fourth and fifth \u00c2ranyakas having been mistaken for the title of the whole work than to the fact that such MSS. represent the text of the \u00c2ranyaka, as adopted by the school of \u00c2sval\u00e2yana.\nThe Aitareya-\u00e2ranyaka consists of the following five \u00c2ranyakas:\nThe first \u00c2ranyaka has five Adhy\u00e2yas:\n1. First Adhy\u00e2ya, Atha mah\u00e2vratam, has four Khandas, 1-4.\n 2. Second Adhy\u00e2ya, \u00c2 tv\u00e2 ratham, has four Khandas, 5-8.\n 3. Third Adhy\u00e2ya, Hi\u1e45k\u00e2rena, has eight\u00a02 Khandas, 9-16.\n 4. Fourth Adhy\u00e2ya, Atha s\u00fbdadoh\u00e2h, has three Khandas, 17-19.\n 5. Fifth Adhy\u00e2ya, Vasam samsati, has three Khandas, 20-22.\nThe second \u00c2ranyaka has seven Adhy\u00e2yas:\n6. First Adhy\u00e2ya, Esh\u00e2 panth\u00e2h, has eight Khandas, 1-8.\n 7. Second Adhy\u00e2ya, Esha imam lokam, has four Khandas, 9-12.\n 8. Third Adhy\u00e2ya, Yo ha v\u00e2 \u00e2tm\u00e2nam, has eight (not three) Khandas, 13-20.\n 9. Fourth Adhy\u00e2ya, \u00c2tma v\u00e2 idam, has three Khandas, 21-23.\n 10. Fifth Adhy\u00e2ya, Purushe ha v\u00e2, has one Khanda, 24\n 11. Sixth Adhy\u00e2ya, Ko 'yam \u00e2tmeti, has one Khanda, 25.\n 12. Seventh Adhy\u00e2ya, V\u00e2\u1e45 me manasi, has one Khanda, 26.\nThe third \u00c2ranyaka has two Adhy\u00e2yas:\n13. First Adhy\u00e2ya, Ath\u00e2tah samhit\u00e2y\u00e2 upanishat, has six Khandas, 1-6.\n 14. Second Adhy\u00e2ya, Pr\u00e2no vamsa iti sthavirah S\u00e2kalyah, has six Khandas, 7-12.\nThe fourth \u00c2ranyaka, has one Adhy\u00e2ya:\n15. First Adhy\u00e2ya, Vid\u00e2 maghavan, has one Khanda (the Mah\u00e2n\u00e2mn\u00ee's).\nThe fifth \u00c2ranyaka has three Adhy\u00e2yas:\n16. First Adhy\u00e2ya, Mah\u00e2vratasya pa\u00f1kavimsatim, has six Khandas, 1-6.\n 17. Second Adhy\u00e2ya, (Gr\u00eev\u00e2h)Yasyedam, has five Khandas, 7-11.\n 18. Third Adhy\u00e2ya, (\u00dbr\u00fb) Indr\u00e2gn\u00ee, has four Khandas, 11-14\n(9-11 are labelled Aitareya-upanishad and 6-14 are labelled Bahvrika-upanishad by vertical brackets in the original)\nWith regard to the Upanishad, we must distinguish between the Aitareya-upanishad, properly so-called, which fills the fourth, fifth, and sixth adhy\u00e2yas of the second \u00c2ranyaka, and the Mahaitareya-upanishad 1, also called by a more general name Bahvrika-upanishad, which comprises the whole of the second and third \u00c2ranyakas.\nThe Persian translator seems to have confined himself to the second \u00c2ranyaka 2, to which he gives various titles, Sarbsar, Asarbeh, Antrteheh. That Antrteheh is a misreading of was pointed out long ago by Burnouf, and the same explanation applies probably to , asarbeh, and if to that, then to Sarbsar also. No explanation has ever been given why the Aitareya-upanishad should have been called Sarvas\u00e2ra, which Professor Weber thinks was corrupted into Sarbsar. At all events the Aitareya-upanishad is not the Sarvas\u00e2ra-upanishad, the Oupnek'hat Sarb, more correctly called Sarvopanishats\u00e2ra, and ascribed either to the Taittir\u00eeyaka or to the Atharva-veda 3.\nThe Aitareya-upanishad, properly so called, has been edited and translated in the Bibliotheca Indica by Dr. R\u00f6er. The whole of the Aitareya-\u00e2ranyaka with S\u00e2yana's commentary was published in the same series by Rajendralal Mitra.\nThough I have had several MSS. of the text and commentary at my disposal, I have derived little aid from them, but have throughout endeavoured to restore that text which Sa\u1e45kara (the pupil of Govinda) and S\u00e2yana had before them. S\u00e2yana, for the Upanishad portion, follows Sa\u1e45kara's commentary, of which we have a gloss by \u00c2nandag\u00f1\u00e2na.\nColebrooke in his Essays (vol. ii, p. 42) says that he\npossessed one gloss by N\u00e2r\u00e2yanendra on Sa\u1e45kara's commentary, and another by \u00c2nandat\u00eertha on a different gloss for the entire Upanishad. The gloss by N\u00e2r\u00e2yanendra 1, however, is, so Dr. Rost informs me, the same as that of \u00c2nandag\u00f1\u00e2na, while, so far as I can see, the gloss contained in MS. E. I. H. 2386 (also MS. Wilson 401), to which Colebrooke refers, is not a gloss by \u00c2nandat\u00eertha at all, but a gloss by Visvesvarat\u00eertha on a commentary by \u00c2nandat\u00eerthabhagavatp\u00e2d\u00e2k\u00e2rya, also called P\u00fbrnaprag\u00f1\u00e2k\u00e2rya, who explained the whole of the Mahaitareya-upanishad from a Vaishnava point of view.\nxcii:1 Aitareyabr\u00e2hmane 'sti k\u00e2ndam \u00e2ranyak\u00e2bhidham (introduction), a remark which he repeats in the fifth \u00c2ranyaka. He also speaks of the \u00c2ranyaka-vratar\u00fbpam br\u00e2hmanam; see p. cxiv, l. 24.\nxcii:2 In the same manner the Kaush\u00eetaki-upanishad is properly called Kaush\u00eetaki-br\u00e2hmana-upanishad, though occurring in the \u00c2ranyaka; see Kaush\u00eetaki-br\u00e2hmana-upanishad, ed. Cowell, p. 30.\nxciii:1 See Boehtlingk and Roth, sv. 'Neun Vedische Verse die in ihrem vollst\u00e4ndigen Wortlaut aber noch nachtnachgewiesen sind.' Weber Indische Studien VIII, 68. How these hymns are to be employed we learn from the \u00c2sval\u00e2yana-s\u00fbtras VII, 12, 10, where we are told that if the Udg\u00e2tris sing the S\u00e2kvara S\u00e2man as the Prishthastotra, the nine verses beginning with Vid\u00e2 maghavan, and known by the name of Mah\u00e2n\u00e2mn\u00ee, are to be joined in a peculiar manner. The only excuse given, why these Mah\u00e2n\u00e2mn\u00ees are mentioned here, and not in the Br\u00e2hmana, is that they are to be studied in the forest.\nxciii:2 M. M., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, pp. 177, 335.\nxciv:1 Not 1600 years, as I printed by mistake; for 24+44+48 make 116 years. Rajendralal Mitra should not have corrected his right rendering 116 into 1600. Ait. \u00c2r. Introduction, p. 3.\nxciv:2 M. M., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 336.\nxcv:1 Colebrooke, Miscellaneous Essays, 1873, II, p. 42.\nxcvi:1 M. M., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 235.\nxcvi:2 Not six, as in Rajendralal Mitra's edition.\nxcvii:1 This may have been the origin of a Rishi Mahaitareya, by the side of the Rishi Aitareya, mentioned in the \u00c2sval\u00e2yana Grihya-s\u00fbtras III, 4 (ed. Stenzler). Professor Weber takes Aitareya and Mahaitareya here as names of works, but he admits that in the S\u00e2\u1e45kh\u00e2yana Grihya-s\u00fbtras they are clearly names of Rishis (Ind. Stud. I, p. 389).\nxcvii:2 He translates II, I-II, 3, 4, leaving out the rest of the third adhy\u00e2ya afterwards II, 4-II, 7.\nxcvii:3 Bibliotheca Indica, the Atharvana-upanishads, p. 394\nxcviii:1 A MS. in the Notices of Sanskrit MSS., vol. ii, p. 133, ascribed to Abhinavan\u00e2r\u00e2yanendra, called \u00c2tmashatkabh\u00e2shyat\u00eek\u00e2, begins like the gloss edited by Dr. R\u00f6er, and ends like S\u00e2yana's commentary on the seventh adhy\u00e2ya, as edited by Rajendralal Mitra. The same name is given in MS. Wilson 94, Sr\u00eematkaivalyendrasarasvat\u00eep\u00fbgyap\u00e2dasishya-sr\u00eemadabhinavan\u00e2r\u00e2yanendrasarasvat\u00ee.","title":"The Upanishads, Part 1 (SBE01): Introduction to the Upanishads: III. The Aitareya-\u00c2ranyaka","type":"page"}