A STUDY OF THE .4VETASVATAROPANISADBHASYA ATTRIBUTED TO SAMKARA: AX AXXOTATED TRANSLATION by Warwick Vincent Jessup submitted for the degree of Master of Philosophy at The School of Oriental and African Studies, London Universitv. ProQuest Number: 10731565 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10731565 Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Dr. T. Gelblum, who supervised this thesis, for his advice and support. 1 would also like to thank Alexis Sanderson, my tutor in my undergraduate days at Oxford, who first introduced me to this field of study, as well as Dr. Jog in Pune, and Anthony Alston, who helped me to choose this text, and also Dr. M. Weltzman of University College, London, who gave me guidance on the subject of the use of computers in determining authenticity. Finally, I am very grateful for the untiring efforts of my mother in typing this thesis. 2 ABSTRACT. The ^vetasvatara Upanisad is not usually considered to be among the ten Upanisads commented on by ^amkara. The Upanisad questions the origin of creation, and explores the relationship between the soul and the Supreme Deity, emphasizing the importance of meditation in realising the Deity. The commentary has a long introduction teaching that liberation comes through knowledge, not rites, quoting profusely from the Puranas and other sources. The commentary on the text itself further expands the Keveladvaitavedanta of Sankara's School, inculcating the unity of the Self, which is the real, and the unreality of all else. Gods spoken of, such as Rudra, are taken as referring to the nondual Brahman, and the various means spoken of are interpreted as means of realising Brahman. Whether this commentary is actually the work of Adidamkara has been disputed for over a century. Indeed, the authenticity of many works attributed to ^amkara has been called into doubt. In the case of the £vetasvataropanlsadbhasya, no thorough-going tests have been applied( and published. The present study, by a combination of Hacker’s litmus-test of authenticity, and other evidence gleaned, proves fairly conclusively that the commentary is not the work of Adi£amkara, but of a later follower, thus vindicating the view that Adi^amkara wrote commentaries on only ten Upanisads. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page (A) AUTHENTICITY 1. QUESTIONS RELATING TO RESEARCH ON AUTHENTICITY 7 1.1 Why question authenticity? 7 1.2 Is the author necessarily an individual? 8 1.3 Will the results of the investigation of authenticity have credibility? 11 2. REVIEW OF RESEARCH ALREADY UNDERTAKEN ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF WORKS ATTRIBUTED TO SAMKARA 12 2.1 P. Regnaud 1876 12 2.2 Lieut. Colonel G.A. Jacob 1886 15 2.3 Shridhar Shastri Pathak 1919 16 2.4 Pandit Vidhusekhara Bhattacarya 1925 17 2.5 S.K. Belvalkar 1925 22 2.6 R. Hauschild 1927 25 2.7 B.N. Krishnaraurti Sarma 1933 27 2.8 P. Hacker (1) 1947 30 2.9 R.D. Karmakar 1958 38 2.10 S. Mayeda 1961 39 2.11 W.R. Antarkar 1962 42 2.12 P. Hacker (2) 1968 s 43 2.13 T. Vetter 1968 46 2.14 S.K. Caturvedi 1979 47 2.15 A. Wezler 1983 *48 2.16 Swami Gambhirananda 1984 48 3. CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE METHODS OF ASSESSING THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE TEXT 49 3.1 Statistics and the use of computers 49 3.2 Appreciation of style 51 3.3 Analysis of doctrines 53 3.4 Circumstantial evidence 54 4 TABLE.OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page 4. APPLICATION OF METHODS TO ASSESS THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE TEXT 54 4.1 Hacker's method, further developed by Mayeda 54 4.2 Statistical analysis of style 68 4.3 General style 70 4.4 Doctrines 73 4.5 Circumstantial evidence 75 4.6 Conclusion 76 (B) A TRANSLATION OF THE ^VETA^VATARA UPANISAD WITH THE COMMENTARY ATTRIBUTED TO £AMKARA ‘ 77 INTRODUCTION 78 Chapter 1 124 Chapter 2 175 Chapter 3 193 Chapter 4 208 Chapter 5 227 Chapter 6 237 (C) NOTES ON THE TRANSLATED TEXT 259 (D) APPENDICES Appendix 1 Manuscripts and editions A 325 Appendix 2 Bibliography 326 Appendix 3 Abbreviations ,332 Appendix 4- Additional note 3 35 5 AUTHENTICITY 6 QUESTIONS RELATING TO RESEARCH ON AUTHENTICITY 1 Why question authenticity? .i In August, 1985, a monk of the ^amkaracarva Order, when questioned as to whether the commentary on the Sveta^vatara Upanisad attributed to Sankara was really composed by 'Adidamkara1 , fThe first ^amkara', the author of the commentary on the Brahma Sutras and many other Upanisads, replied that there was no reason to doubt the authenticity. The implication was that an understanding of the text itself was far more important than any question of authorship, particularly for one whose interest is in the practice of the teachings expounded by the text. The same argument, when applied to various types of composition, makes good sense; when listening to a piece of music, we appreciate its intrinsic qualities, and are not concerned with the identity of the composer. Discussing authenticity has become fashionable in recent decades. Returning to the comparison of music, we find that the ’authenticity' of many compositions has been questioned, so that, for example, some of the works formerly attributed to Vivaldi are now considered ’spurious’ by some. Ultimately, the value of any work of art must be judged on its own merits, regardless of its composer. 7 However, if we wish to make a study of a particular author, it is necessary to identify the works he has composed. Here the intelligent application of an analytical method can be useful. In the case of ^amkara, the founder, or perhaps reviver of a prodigious tradition, such an enquiry can be justified, Aufrecht in Catalogus Catalogorum shows that more than three hundred works have been . traditionally ascribed to ^amkara. The huge volume of these writings, as well as their variety, has led scholars to doubt that they could all have been composed by one man. This has, for some, led to the vie a that all works attributed to the author are spurious unless they can be proved genuine. However, proof per se of the authorship of a work written perhaps over a thousand years ago, and transmitted from manuscript to manuscript, and even from mouth to mouth is rarely established. Much of what has been written on the authenticity of jSamkara’s works has often rather naively assumed that a text we have today lias not been greatly changed over the centuries. Although fidelity of transmission is traditionally much-prized in the Sanskritic tradition, in practice the ideal cannot always be matched. This leads to our next question. 'A .2 Is the author necessarily an individual? Some schools of historic thought argue that traditional history is unrealistic, since it portrays momentous events involving whole nations as being dependent on the actions of a few leaders. The second world war could be seen as essentially a conflict between Churchill and Hitler, rather than the sum total of the experiences undergone by the millions of individuals involved. Both approaches have their limitations, the first since it may lead to over-simplification, the second since it is not easily quantifiable. 8 Being more readily comprehensible, the first view normally predominates, particularly as events fade further into the past, and known details are fewer and less reliable. This tendency seems to have been even more marked in the Sanskritic culture. The theme is taken up in the Bhagavad Gita, one of the most celebrated Sanskrit texts: ’yad yad acarati ^resthas/tat tad evetaro janah sa yat pramanarn kurute/ lokas tad anuvartate.' 'Whatever the best man does, that alone do other men do; whatever standard lie sets, that the world follows.' (Bhagavad Gita 3:21) The Bhagavad Gita itself, like the many heroes of the Indian tradition, has become the subject of universal eulogy. Whole volumes of traditional scripture are said to be the work of one individual, whose capabilities are seen as super-human. Monier Williams, (whose Sanskrit-English dictionary is itself indebted to the work of several G e r m a n scholars who helped) enumerates the achievements of Vyasa (aA word that literally could mean ’arranger’) as ’the original compiler and arranger of the Vedas, Vedanta-Sutras etc., compiler of the Mahabh&rata, the Puranas and other portions of Hindu sacred literature; but the name Vyasa seems to have been given to any great typical compiler or author.' We may suspect that a similar process of attribution has taken place under the name ’^amkara.’ 9 Among the works attributed to Samkara, it may be possible to detect several works of a teacher who went by the name Samkara. Alternatively, we may decide to take the view that it is unrealistic to assume that a particular work is the composition of a single man, and rather attribute it to a School, perhaps to a certain period in the development of that School. A text can be regarded as an archaeological site, having undergone various accretions and amendments over the centuries as different monks of the ^amkaracarya Order saw fit.