TheUpanishads (/ʊˈpʌnɪʃədz/;[1]Sanskrit:उपनिषद्,IAST:Upaniṣad,pronounced[ˈupɐniʂɐd]) arelate Vedic and post-Vedic Sanskrit texts that "document the transition from the archaic ritualism of the Veda into new religious ideas and institutions"[2] and the emergence of the central religious concepts ofHinduism.[2][note 1] They are the most recent addition to theVedas, the oldest scriptures of Hinduism, and deal with meditation,philosophy,consciousness, andontological knowledge. Earlier parts of the Vedas dealt with mantras, benedictions, rituals, ceremonies, and sacrifices.[3][4][5]
While among the most important literature in the history of Indian religions and culture, the Upanishads document a wide variety of "rites, incantations, and esoteric knowledge"[6] departing from Vedic ritualism and interpreted in various ways in the later commentarial traditions. The Upanishads are widely known, and their diverse ideas, interpreted in various ways, informed later traditions of Hinduism.[note 1] The central concern of all Upanishads is to discover the relations between ritual, cosmic realities (including gods), and the human body/person,[7] postulatingĀtman andBrahman as the "summit of the hierarchically arranged and interconnected universe",[8][9][10] but various ideas about the relation between Atman and Brahman can be found.[10][note 2]
108 Upanishads are known, of which the first dozen or so are the oldest and most important and are referred to as the principal or main (mukhya) Upanishads.[11][12] Themukhya Upanishads are found mostly in the concluding part of theBrahmanas andAranyakas[13] and were, for centuries, memorized by each generation and passed downorally. Themukhya Upanishads predate theCommon Era, but there is no scholarly consensus on their date, or even on which ones are pre- or post-Buddhist. TheBrhadaranyaka is seen as particularly ancient by modern scholars.[14][15][16] Of the remainder, 95 Upanishads are part of theMuktikā canon, composed from about the last centuries of 1st-millennium BCE through about 15th-century CE.[17][18] New Upanishads, beyond the 108 in the Muktika canon, continued to be composed through the early modern and modern era,[19] though often dealing with subjects that are unconnected to the Vedas.[20] Themukhya Upanishads, along with theBhagavad Gita and theBrahmasutra (known collectively as thePrasthanatrayi),[21] are interpreted in divergent ways in the several later schools ofVedanta.[10][note 3][22]
Translations of the Upanishads in the early 19th century started to attract attention from a Western audience. German philosopherArthur Schopenhauer was deeply impressed by the Upanishads and called them "the most profitable and elevating reading which ... is possible in the world."[23] Modern eraIndologists have discussed the similarities between the fundamental concepts in the Upanishads and the works of majorWestern philosophers.[24][25][26]
TheSanskrit termUpaniṣad originally meant “connection” or “equivalence",[27] but came to be understood as "sitting near a teacher,"[27] fromupa "by" andni-ṣad "sit down",[28] "sitting down near", referring to the student sitting down near the teacher while receiving spiritual knowledge (Gurumukh).[29] Other dictionary meanings include "esoteric doctrine" and "secret doctrine".Monier-Williams'Sanskrit Dictionary notes – "According to native authorities, Upanishad means setting to rest ignorance by revealing the knowledge of the supreme spirit."[30]
Adi Shankaracharya explains in his commentary on theKaṭha andBrihadaranyaka Upanishad that the word meansĀtmavidyā, that is, "knowledge of theself", orBrahmavidyā "knowledge of Brahman". The word appears in the verses of many Upanishads, such as the fourth verse of the 13th volume in the first chapter of the Chandogya Upanishad.Max Müller as well asPaul Deussen translate the wordUpanishad in these verses as "secret doctrine",[31][32] Robert Hume translates it as "mystic meaning",[33] whilePatrick Olivelle translates it as "hidden connections".[34]
The authorship of most Upanishads is unknown.Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan states, "almost all the early literature of India was anonymous, we do not know the names of the authors of the Upanishads".[35] The ancient Upanishads are embedded in the Vedas, the oldest of Hinduism's religious scriptures, which some traditionally consider to beapauruṣeya, which means "not of a man, superhuman"[36] and "impersonal, authorless".[37][38][39] The Vedic texts assert that they were skillfully created byRishis (sages), after inspired creativity, just as a carpenter builds a chariot.[40]
The various philosophical theories in the early Upanishads have been attributed to famous sages such asYajnavalkya,Uddalaka Aruni,Shvetaketu,Shandilya, Aitareya, Balaki,Pippalada, andSanatkumara.[35][41] Women, such as Maitreyi andGargi, participate in the dialogues and are also credited in the early Upanishads.[42] There are some exceptions to the anonymous tradition of the Upanishads. TheShvetashvatara Upanishad, for example, includes closing credits to sageShvetashvatara, and he is considered the author of the Upanishad.[43]
Many scholars believe that early Upanishads were interpolated[44] and expanded over time. There are differences within manuscripts of the same Upanishad discovered in different parts of South Asia, differences in non-Sanskrit version of the texts that have survived, and differences within each text in terms of meter,[45] style, grammar and structure.[46][47] The existing texts are believed to be the work of many authors.[48]
Scholars are uncertain about when the Upanishads were composed.[49] The chronology of the early Upanishads is difficult to resolve, states philosopher andSanskritist Stephen Phillips,[11] because all opinions rest on scanty evidence and analysis of archaism, style and repetitions across texts, and are driven by assumptions about likely evolution of ideas, and presumptions about which philosophy might have influenced which other Indian philosophies. IndologistPatrick Olivelle says that "in spite of claims made by some, in reality, any dating of these documents [early Upanishads] that attempts a precision closer than a few centuries is as stable as a house of cards".[14]
Some scholars have tried to analyse similarities between Hindu Upanishads and Buddhist literature to establish chronology for the Upanishads.[15] Precise dates are impossible, and most scholars give only broad ranges encompassing various centuries.Gavin Flood states that "the Upanisads are not a homogeneous group of texts. Even the older texts were composed over a wide expanse of time from about 600 to 300 BCE."[50] Stephen Phillips places the early or "principal" Upanishads in the 800 to 300 BCE range.[11]
TheBrhadaranyaka and theChandogya are the two earliest Upanishads. They are edited texts, some of whose sources are much older than others. The two texts are pre-Buddhist; they may be placed in the 7th to 6th centuries BCE, give or take a century or so.[51][15]
The three other early prose Upanishads—Taittiriya, Aitareya, andKausitaki come next; all are probably pre-Buddhist and can be assigned to the 6th to 5th centuries BCE.[52]
The Kena is the oldest of the verse Upanishads followed by probably the Katha, Isa,Svetasvatara, and Mundaka. All these Upanishads were composed probably in the last few centuries BCE.[53] According to Olivelle, "All exhibit strongtheistic tendencies and are probably the earliest literary products of the theistic tradition, whose later literature includes the Bhagavad Gita and the Puranas."[54]
The two late prose Upanishads, the Prasna and the Mandukya, cannot be much older than the beginning of the common era.[49][14]
Meanwhile, the IndologistJohannes Bronkhorst argues for a later date for the Upanishads than has generally been accepted. Bronkhorst places even the oldest of the Upanishads, such as theBrhadaranyaka as possibly still being composed at "a date close toKatyayana andPatañjali [the grammarian]" (i.e.,c. 2nd century BCE).[16]
The later Upanishads, numbering about 95, also called minor Upanishads, are dated from the late 1st-millennium BCE to mid 2nd-millennium CE.[17]Gavin Flood dates many of the twentyYoga Upanishads to be probably from the 100 BCE to 300 CE period.[18]Patrick Olivelle and other scholars date seven of the twentySannyasa Upanishads to likely have been complete sometime between the last centuries of the 1st-millennium BCE to 300 CE.[17] About half of the Sannyasa Upanishads were likely composed in 14th- to 15th-century CE.[17]
The general area of the composition of the early Upanishads is considered as northern India. The region is bounded on the west by the upper Indus valley, on the east by lower Ganges region, on the north by the Himalayan foothills, and on the south by the Vindhya mountain range.[14] Scholars are reasonably sure that the early Upanishads were produced at the geographical center of ancient Brahmanism,Kuru-Panchala, andKosala-Videha, a "frontier region" of Brahmanism, together with the areas immediately to the south and west of these.[55] This region covers modernBihar,Nepal,Uttar Pradesh,Uttarakhand,Himachal Pradesh,Haryana, easternRajasthan, and northernMadhya Pradesh.[14]
While significant attempts have been made recently to identify the exact locations of the individual Upanishads, the results are tentative. Witzel identifies the center of activity in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad as the area of Videha, whose king, Janaka, features prominently in the Upanishad.[56] The Chandogya Upanishad was probably composed in a more western than eastern location in the Indian subcontinent, possibly somewhere in the western region of the Kuru-Panchala country.[57]
Compared to the Principal Upanishads, the new Upanishads recorded in theMuktikā belong to an entirely different region, probably southern India, and are considerably relatively recent.[58] In the fourth chapter of the Kaushitaki Upanishad, a location named Kashi (modernVaranasi) is mentioned.[14]
There are more than 200 knownUpanishads, one of which, theMuktikā Upanishad, predates 1656 CE[59] and contains a list of 108 canonical Upanishads,[60] including itself as the last. These are further divided into Upanishads associated withShaktism (goddess Shakti),Sannyasa (renunciation, monastic life),Shaivism (god Shiva),Vaishnavism (god Vishnu),Yoga, andSāmānya (general, sometimes referred to as Samanya-Vedanta).[61][62]
Some of the Upanishads are categorized as "sectarian" since they present their ideas through a particular god or goddess of a specific Hindu tradition such as Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti, or a combination of these such as theSkanda Upanishad. These traditions sought to link their texts as Vedic, by asserting their texts to be an Upanishad, thereby aŚruti.[63] Most of these sectarian Upanishads, for example theRudrahridaya Upanishad and theMahanarayana Upanishad, assert that all the Hindu gods and goddesses are the same, all an aspect and manifestation ofBrahman, the Vedic concept for metaphysical ultimate reality before and after the creation of the Universe.[64][65]
The Principal Upanishads, also known as theMukhya Upanishads, can be grouped into periods. Of the early periods are theBrihadaranyaka and theChandogya, the oldest.[66][note 4]
The Aitareya, Kauṣītaki and Taittirīya Upanishads may date to as early as the mid-1st millennium BCE, while the remnant date from between roughly the 4th to 1st centuries BCE, roughly contemporary with the earliest portions of theSanskrit epics. One chronology assumes that theAitareya, Taittiriya, Kausitaki, Mundaka, Prasna, andKatha Upanishads has Buddha's influence, and is consequently placed after the 5th century BCE, while another proposal questions this assumption and dates it independent of Buddha's date of birth. TheKena,Mandukya, andIsa Upanishads are typically placed after these Principal Upanishads, but other scholars date these differently.[15] Not much is known about the authors except for those, like Yajnavalkayva and Uddalaka, mentioned in the texts.[13] A few women discussants, such as Gargi and Maitreyi, the wife of Yajnavalkayva,[68] also feature occasionally.
Each of the principalUpanishads can be associated with one of the schools of exegesis of the four Vedas (shakhas).[69] Many Shakhas are said to have existed, of which only a few remain. The newUpanishads often have little relation to the Vedic corpus and have not been cited or commented upon by any great Vedanta philosopher: their language differs from that of the classicUpanishads, being less subtle and more formalized. As a result, they are not difficult to comprehend for the modern reader.[70]
There is no fixed list of theUpanishads as newer ones, beyond the Muktika anthology of 108 Upanishads, have continued to be discovered and composed.[71] In 1908, for example, four previously unknown Upanishads were discovered in newly found manuscripts, and these were namedBashkala,Chhagaleya,Arsheya, andSaunaka, byFriedrich Schrader,[72] who attributed them to the first prose period of the Upanishads.[73] The text of three of them, namely theChhagaleya,Arsheya, andSaunaka, were incomplete and inconsistent, likely poorly maintained or corrupted.[73]
Ancient Upanishads have long enjoyed a revered position in Hindu traditions, and authors of numerous sectarian texts have tried to benefit from this reputation by naming their texts as Upanishads.[74] These "new Upanishads" number in the hundreds, cover diverse range of topics from physiology[75] to renunciation[76] to sectarian theories.[74] They were composed between the last centuries of the 1st millennium BCE through the early modern era (~1600 CE).[74][76] While over two dozen of the minor Upanishads are dated to pre-3rd century CE,[17][18] many of these new texts under the title of "Upanishads" originated in the first half of the 2nd millennium CE,[74] they are not Vedic texts, and some do not deal with themes found in the Vedic Upanishads.[20]
The mainShakta Upanishads, for example, mostly discuss doctrinal and interpretative differences between the two principal sects of a majorTantric form of Shaktism calledShri Vidyaupasana. The many extant lists of authenticShakta Upaniṣads vary, reflecting the sect of their compilers, so that they yield no evidence of their "location" in Tantric tradition, impeding correct interpretation. The Tantra content of these texts also weaken its identity as an Upaniṣad for non-Tantrikas. Sectarian texts such as these do not enjoy status asshruti and thus the authority of the new Upanishads as scripture is not accepted in Hinduism.[77]
All Upanishads are associated with one of the four Vedas—Rigveda,Samaveda,Yajurveda (there are two primary versions orSamhitas of the Yajurveda:Shukla Yajurveda,Krishna Yajurveda), andAtharvaveda.[78] During the modern era, the ancient Upanishads that were embedded texts in the Vedas, were detached from theBrahmana andAranyaka layers of Vedic text, compiled into separate texts and these were then gathered intoanthologies of the Upanishads.[74] These lists associated each Upanishad with one of the four Vedas. Many such lists exist but they are inconsistent across India in terms of which Upanishads are included and how the newer Upanishads are assigned to the ancient Vedas. In south India, the collected list based on Muktika Upanishad,[note 5] and published inTelugu language, became the most common by the 19th-century and this is a list of 108 Upanishads.[74][79] In north India, a list of 52 Upanishads has been most common.[74]
TheMuktikā Upanishad's list of 108 Upanishads groups the first 13 asmukhya,[80][note 6] 21 asSāmānya Vedānta, 18 asSannyāsa,[84] 14 asVaishnava, 14 asShaiva, 8 asShakta, and 20 asYoga.[85] The 108 Upanishads as recorded in theMuktikā are shown in the table below.[78] The mukhya Upanishads are the most important and highlighted.[82]
Impact of a drop of water, a common analogy forBrahman and the Ātman
The central concern of all Upanishads is to discover the relations between ritual, cosmic realities (including gods), and the human body/person,[7] postulatingĀtman andBrahman as the "summit of the hierarchically arranged and interconnected universe,"[8][9][10] but various ideas about the relation between Atman and Brahman can be found.[10][note 2]
The Upanishads reflect a pluralism of worldviews. While some Upanishads have been deemed 'monistic', others, including theKatha Upanishad, aredualistic.[92] The Maitri is one of the Upanishads that inclines more toward dualism, thus grounding classicalSamkhya andYoga schools of Hinduism, in contrast to the non-dualistic Upanishads at the foundation of its Vedanta school.[93] They contain a plurality of ideas.[94][note 2]
The Upanishads include sections on philosophical theories that have been at the foundation of Indian traditions. For example, theChandogya Upanishad includes one of the earliest known declarations ofAhimsa (non-violence) as an ethical precept.[95][96] Discussion of other ethical premises such asDamah (temperance, self-restraint),Satya (truthfulness),Dāna (charity),Ārjava (non-hypocrisy),Daya (compassion), and others are found in the oldest Upanishads and many later Upanishads.[97][98] Similarly, the Karma doctrine is presented in theBrihadaranyaka Upanishad, which is the oldest Upanishad.[99]
While the hymns of the Vedas emphasize rituals and the Brahmanas serve as a liturgical manual for those Vedic rituals, the spirit of the Upanishads is inherently opposed to ritual.[100] The older Upanishads launch attacks of increasing intensity on the ritual. Anyone who worships a divinity other than the self is called a domestic animal of the gods in theBrihadaranyaka Upanishad. TheChāndogya Upanishad parodies those who indulge in the acts of sacrifice by comparing them with a procession of dogs chantingOm! Let's eat. Om! Let's drink.[100]
TheKaushitaki Upanishad asserts that "external rituals such asAgnihotram offered in the morning and in the evening, must be replaced with inner Agnihotram, the ritual of introspection", and that "not rituals, but knowledge should be one's pursuit".[101] TheMundaka Upanishad declares how man has been called upon, promised benefits for, scared unto and misled into performing sacrifices, oblations and pious works.[102] Mundaka thereafter asserts this is foolish and frail, by those who encourage it and those who follow it, because it makes no difference to man's current life and after-life, it is like blind men leading the blind, it is a mark of conceit and vain knowledge, ignorant inertia like that of children, a futile useless practice.[102][103] TheMaitri Upanishad states,[104]
The performance of all the sacrifices, described in the Maitrayana-Brahmana, is to lead up in the end to a knowledge of Brahman, to prepare a man for meditation. Therefore, let such man, after he has laid those fires,[105] meditate on the Self, to become complete and perfect. But who is to be meditated on?
The opposition to the ritual is not explicit in the oldest Upanishads. On occasions, the Upanishads extend the task of the Aranyakas by making the ritual allegorical and giving it a philosophical meaning. For example, the Brihadaranyaka interprets the practice of horse-sacrifice orashvamedha allegorically. It states that the over-lordship of the earth may be acquired by sacrificing a horse. It then goes on to say that spiritual autonomy can only be achieved by renouncing the universe which is conceived in the image of a horse.[100]
In similar fashion,Vedic gods such as theAgni,Aditya,Indra,Rudra,Visnu,Brahma, and others become equated in the Upanishads to the supreme, immortal, and incorporeal Brahman-Atman of the Upanishads, god becomes synonymous with self, and is declared to be everywhere, inmost being of each human being and within every living creature.[108][109][110] The one reality orekam sat of the Vedas becomes theekam eva advitiyam or "the one and only and sans a second" in the Upanishads.[100] Brahman-Atman and self-realization develops, in the Upanishad, as the means tomoksha (liberation; freedom in this life or after-life).[110][111][112]
According toJayatilleke, the thinkers of Upanishadic texts can be grouped into two categories.[113] One group, which includes early Upanishads along with some middle and late Upanishads, were composed by metaphysicians who used rational arguments and empirical experience to formulate their speculations and philosophical premises. The second group includes many middle and later Upanishads, where their authors professed theories based on yoga and personal experiences.[113] Yoga philosophy and practice, adds Jayatilleke, is "not entirely absent in the Early Upanishads".[113]
The development of thought in these Upanishadic theories contrasted with Buddhism, since the Upanishadic inquiry fails to find an empirical correlate of the assumed Atman, but nevertheless assumes its existence,[114] "[reifying] consciousness as an eternal self."[115] The Buddhist inquiry "is satisfied with the empirical investigation which shows that no such Atman exists because there is no evidence," states Jayatilleke.[114]
The Upanishads postulateĀtman andBrahman as the "summit of the hierarchically arranged and interconnected universe."[8][9][10] Both have multiple meanings,[116] and various ideas about the relation between Atman and Brahman can be found.[10][note 2]
Atman has "a wide range of lexical meanings, including ‘breath’, ‘spirit’, and ‘body’."[117] In the Upanishads it refers to the body, but also to the essence of the concrete physical human body,[8] "an essence, a life-force, consciousness, or ultimate reality."[117] The Chāndogya Upaniṣhad (6.1-16) "offers an organic understanding of ātman, characterizing the self in terms of the life force that animates all living beings," while the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣhad "characterizes ātman more in terms of consciousness than as a life-giving essence."[117]
Brahman may refer to a "formulation of truth," but also to "the ultimate and basic essence of the cosmos," standing at the "summit of the hierarchical scheme, or at the bottom as the ultimate foundation of all things."[116] Brahman is "beyond the reach of human perception and thought."[118] Atman likewise has multiple meanings, one of them being 'self', the inner essence of a human body/person.[119][120][note 8]
Two different types of the non-dual Brahman-Atman are presented in the Upanishads, according to Mahadevan. The one in which the non-dual Brahman-Atman is the all-inclusive ground of the universe and another in which empirical, changing reality is an appearance (Maya).[124]
The Upanishads describe the universe, and the human experience, as an interplay ofPurusha (the eternal, unchanging principles, consciousness) andPrakṛti (the temporary, changing material world, nature).[125] The former manifests itself asĀtman (soul, self), and the latter asMāyā. The Upanishads refer to the knowledge ofAtman as "true knowledge" (Vidya), and the knowledge ofMaya as "not true knowledge" (Avidya, Nescience, lack of awareness, lack of true knowledge).[126]
Hendrick Vroom explains, "the termMaya [in the Upanishads] has been translated as 'illusion,' but then it does not concern normal illusion. Here 'illusion' does not mean that the world is not real and simply a figment of the human imagination.Maya means that the world is not as it seems; the world that one experiences is misleading as far as its true nature is concerned."[127] According toWendy Doniger, "to say that the universe is an illusion (māyā) is not to say that it is unreal; it is to say, instead, that it is not what it seems to be, that it is something constantly being made. Māyā not only deceives people about the things they think they know; more basically, it limits their knowledge."[128]
In the Upanishads, Māyā is the perceived changing reality and it co-exists with Brahman which is the hidden true reality.[129][130]Maya, or "illusion", is an important idea in the Upanishads, because the texts assert that in the human pursuit of blissful and liberating self-knowledge, it isMaya which obscures, confuses and distracts an individual.[131][132]
The Upanishads form one of the three main sources for all schools of Vedanta, together with the Bhagavad Gita and theBrahmasutras.[133] Due to the wide variety of philosophical teachings contained in the Upanishads, various interpretations could be grounded on the Upanishads.[note 2][note 9] The schools of Vedānta seek to answer questions about the relation between atman and Brahman, and the relation between Brahman and the world.[134] The schools of Vedanta are named after the relation they see between atman and Brahman:[135]
Advaita literally means non-duality, and it is amonistic system of thought.[138] It deals with the non-dual nature ofBrahman and Atman. Advaita is considered the most influential sub-school of theVedanta school of Hindu philosophy.[138] Gaudapada was the first person to expound the basic principles of the Advaita philosophy in a commentary on the conflicting statements of the Upanishads.[139] Gaudapada's Advaita ideas were further developed byShankara (8th century CE).[140][141] King states that Gaudapada's main work, Māṇḍukya Kārikā, is infused with philosophical terminology of Buddhism, and uses Buddhist arguments and analogies.[142] King also suggests that there are clear differences between Shankara's writings and theBrahmasutra,[140][141] and many ideas of Shankara are at odds with those in the Upanishads.[143] Radhakrishnan, on the other hand, suggests that Shankara's views of Advaita were straightforward developments of the Upanishads and theBrahmasutra,[144] and many ideas of Shankara derive from the Upanishads.[145]
Shankara in his discussions of the Advaita Vedanta philosophy referred to the early Upanishads to explain the key difference between Hinduism and Buddhism, stating that Hinduism asserts that Atman (soul, self) exists, whereas Buddhism asserts that there is no soul, no self.[146][147][148]
Shankara used four sentences from the Upanishads, called theMahāvākyas (Great Sayings), to establish the identity of Atman and Brahman as scriptural truth:
Vijñānabhikṣu countered Advaita emphasis on non-difference of the self and Brahman by pointing to statements from the Upanishads that support difference.[153]
Ramanuja (1017–1137 CE), the main proponent of the Vishishtadvaita philosophy, disagreed with Adi Shankara and the Advaita school.[154] Visistadvaita is a synthetic philosophy bridging the monistic Advaita and theistic Dvaita systems of Vedanta.[155] Ramanuja frequently cited the Upanishads, and stated that Vishishtadvaita is grounded in the Upanishads.[156][157]
Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita interpretation of the Upanishads is that of qualifiedmonism.[158][159] Ramanuja interprets the Upanishadic literature to be teaching a body-soul theory, states Jeaneane Fowler – a professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies, where the Brahman is the dweller in all things, yet also distinct and beyond all things, as the soul, the inner controller, the immortal.[157] The Upanishads, according to the Vishishtadvaita school, teach individual souls to be of the same quality as the Brahman, but quantitatively distinct.[160][161][162]
In the Vishishtadvaita school, the Upanishads are interpreted to be teaching aboutIshvara (Vishnu), who is the seat of all auspicious qualities, with all of the empirically perceived world as the body of God who dwells in everything.[157] The school recommends a devotion to godliness and constant remembrance of the beauty and love of a personal god. This ultimately leads one to the oneness with abstract Brahman.[163][164][165] The Brahman in the Upanishads is a living reality, states Fowler, and "the Atman of all things and all beings" in Ramanuja's interpretation.[157]
The Dvaita school was founded byMadhvacharya (1199–1278 CE).[166] It is regarded as a strongly theistic philosophic exposition of the Upanishads.[155] Madhvacharya, much like Adi Shankara claims for Advaita, and Ramanuja claims for Vishishtadvaita, states that his theistic Dvaita Vedanta is grounded in the Upanishads.[156]
According to the Dvaita school, states Fowler, the "Upanishads that speak of the soul as Brahman, speak of resemblance and not identity".[167] Madhvacharya interprets the Upanishadic teachings of the self becoming one with Brahman, as "entering into Brahman", just like a drop enters an ocean. This to the Dvaita school implies duality and dependence, where Brahman and Atman are different realities. Brahman is a separate, independent and supreme reality in the Upanishads, Atman only resembles the Brahman in limited, inferior, dependent manner according toMadhvacharya.[167][168][169]
Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita school and Shankara's Advaita school are both nondualism Vedanta schools,[163] both are premised on the assumption that all souls can hope for and achieve the state of blissful liberation; in contrast, Madhvacharya believed that some souls are eternally doomed and damned.[170][171]
Several scholars have recognised parallels between the philosophy ofPythagoras andPlato and that of the Upanishads, including their ideas onsources of knowledge, concept of justice and path to salvation, and Plato'sallegory of the cave. Platonic psychology with its divisions of reason, spirit and appetite, also bears resemblance to the threeGuṇas in the Indian philosophy ofSamkhya.[172][173][note 10]
Various mechanisms for such a transmission of knowledge have been conjectured including Pythagoras traveling as far as India; Indian philosophers visiting Athens and meetingSocrates; Plato encountering the ideas when in exile in Syracuse; or, intermediated through Persia.[172][175]
However, other scholars, such asArthur Berriedale Keith,J. Burnet andA. R. Wadia, believe that the two systems developed independently. They note that there is no historical evidence of the philosophers of the two schools meeting, and point out significant differences in the stage of development, orientation and goals of the two philosophical systems. Wadia writes that Plato's metaphysics were rooted inthis life and his primary aim was to develop an ideal state.[173] In contrast, Upanishadic focus was the individual, the self (atman, soul), self-knowledge, and the means of an individual'smoksha (freedom, liberation in this life or after-life).[176][177]
Anquetil-Duperron, a French Orientalist, received a manuscript of theOupanekhat and translated the Persian version into French and Latin, publishing the Latin translation in two volumes in 1801–1802 asOupneck'hat.[181][179] The French translation was never published.[182] More recently, several translations in French of some Upanishads or the whole of 108 have been published : by indianistsLouis Renou,Kausitaki, Svetasvatra, Prasna, Taittiriya Upanisads, 1948;[183]Jean Varenne,Mahâ-Nârâyana Upanisad, 1960,[184] andSept Upanishads, 1981;[185] Alyette Degrâces-Fadh,Samnyâsa-Upanisad (Upanisad du renoncement), 1989;[186] Martine Buttex,Les 108 Upanishads (full translation), 2012.[187]
The Latin version was the initial introduction of the Upanishadic thought to Western scholars.[188] However, according to Deussen, the Persian translators took great liberties in translating the text and at times changed the meaning.[189]
The first German translation appeared in 1832 and Roer's English version appeared in 1853. However, Max Mueller's 1879 and 1884 editions were the first systematic English treatment to include the 12 Principal Upanishads.[178] Other major translations of the Upanishads have been by Robert Ernest Hume (13 Principal Upanishads),[193]Paul Deussen (60 Upanishads),[194]Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (18 Upanishads),[195]Patrick Olivelle (32 Upanishads in two books)[196][197] and Bhānu Swami (13 Upanishads with commentaries of Vaiṣṇava ācāryas). Olivelle's translation won the 1998 A.K. Ramanujan Book Prize for Translation.[198]
Throughout the 1930s,Irish poetW. B. Yeats worked with the Indian-bornmendicant-teacherShri Purohit Swami on their own translation of the Upanishads, eventually titledThe Ten Principal Upanishads and published in 1938. This translation was the final piece of work published by Yeats before his death less than a year later.[199]
German 19th century philosopherArthur Schopenhauer, impressed by the Upanishads, called the texts "the production of the highest human wisdom".
The German philosopherArthur Schopenhauer read the Latin translation and praised the Upanishads in his main work,The World as Will and Representation (1819), as well as in hisParerga and Paralipomena (1851).[200] He found his own philosophy in accord with the Upanishads, which taught that the individual is a manifestation of the one basis of reality. For Schopenhauer, that fundamentally real underlying unity is what we know in ourselves as "will". Schopenhauer used to keep a copy of the LatinOupnekhet by his side and commented,
In the whole world there is no study so beneficial and so elevating as that of the Upanishads. It has been the solace of my life, it will be the solace of my death.[201]
Schopenhauer's philosophy influenced many famous people and introduced them to the Upanishads. One of them was the Austrian PhysicistErwin Schrödinger, who once wrote:
“There is obviously only one alternative,” he wrote, “namely the unification of minds or consciousnesses. Their multiplicity is only apparent, in truth there is only one mind. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads.”[202]
Another German philosopher,Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, praised the ideas in the Upanishads,[203] as did others.[204] In the United States, the group known as theTranscendentalists were influenced by the German idealists. Americans, such asEmerson andThoreau embraced Schelling's interpretation ofKant'sTranscendental idealism, as well as his celebration of the romantic, exotic, mystical aspect of the Upanishads. As a result of the influence of these writers, the Upanishads gained renown in Western countries.[205]
The poetT. S. Eliot, inspired by his reading of the Upanishads, based the final portion of his famous poemThe Waste Land (1922) upon one of its verses.[206] According toEknath Easwaran, the Upanishads are snapshots of towering peaks of consciousness.[207]
Juan Mascaró, a professor at the University of Barcelona and a translator of the Upanishads, states that the Upanishads represents for the Hindu approximately what theNew Testament represents for the Christian, and that the message of the Upanishads can be summarized in the words, "the kingdom of God is within you".[208]
Paul Deussen in his review of the Upanishads, states that the texts emphasize Brahman-Atman as something that can be experienced, but not defined.[209] This view of the soul and self are similar, states Deussen, to those found in the dialogues of Plato and elsewhere. The Upanishads insisted on oneness of soul, excluded all plurality, and therefore, all proximity in space, all succession in time, all interdependence as cause and effect, and all opposition as subject and object.[209] Max Müller, in his review of the Upanishads, summarizes the lack of systematic philosophy and the central theme in the Upanishads as follows,
There is not what could be called a philosophical system in these Upanishads. They are, in the true sense of the word, guesses at truth, frequently contradicting each other, yet all tending in one direction. The key-note of the old Upanishads is "know thyself," but with a much deeper meaning than that of theγνῶθι σεαυτόν of theDelphic Oracle. The "know thyself" of the Upanishads means, know thy true self, that which underlines thine Ego, and find it and know it in the highest, the eternal Self, the One without a second, which underlies the whole world.
Doniger (1990, p. 2-3: "The Upanishads supply the basis of later Hindu philosophy; they are widely known and quoted by most well-educated Hindus, and their central ideas have also become a part of the spiritual arsenal of rank-and-file Hindus." *Dissanayake (1993, p. 39): "The Upanishads form the foundations of Hindu philosophical thought"; * Patrick Olivelle (2014),The Early Upanisads, Oxford University Press,ISBN978-0195352429, page 3: "Even though theoretically the whole of vedic corpus is accepted as revealed truth [shruti], in reality it is the Upanishads that have continued to influence the life and thought of the various religious traditions that we have come to call Hindu. Upanishads are the scriptures par excellence of Hinduism"; * Michael McDowell and Nathan Brown (2009), World Religions, Penguin,ISBN978-1592578467, pages 208-210. These new concepts and practices include rebirth, samsara, karma, meditation, renunciation and moksha.(Olivelle 1998, pp. xx–xxiv) The Upanishadic, Buddhist and Jain renunciation traditions form parallel traditions, which share some common concepts and interests. WhileKuru-Panchala, at the central Ganges Plain, formed the center of the early Upanishadic tradition,Kosala-Magadha at the central Ganges Plain formed the center of the othershramanic traditions.(Samuel 2010))
^abcdefOliville: "In this Introduction I have avoided speaking of 'the philosophy of the upanishads', a common feature of most introductions to their translations. These documents were composed over several centuries and in various regions, and it is futile to try to discover a single doctrine or philosophy in them."[94]
^Vedanta has been interpreted as the "last chapters, parts of theVeda" and alternatively as "object, the highest purpose of the Veda".
Atman, Oxford Dictionaries, Oxford University Press (2012): "1. real self of the individual; 2. a person's soul";
John Bowker (2000), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, Oxford University Press,ISBN978-0192800947, See entry for Atman;
WJ Johnson (2009), A Dictionary of Hinduism, Oxford University Press,ISBN978-0198610250, See entry for Atman (self);
Richard King (1995), Early Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism, State University of New York Press,ISBN978-0791425138, page 64 "Atman as the innermost essence or soul of man, and Brahman as the innermost essence and support of the universe. (...) Thus we can see in the Upanishads, a tendency towards a convergence of microcosm and macrocosm, culminating in the equating of Atman with Brahman".
Chad Meister (2010), The Oxford Handbook of Religious Diversity, Oxford University Press,ISBN978-0195340136, page 63: "Even though Buddhism explicitly rejected the Hindu ideas of Atman ("soul") and Brahman, Hinduism treats Sakyamuni Buddha as one of the ten avatars of Vishnu."
David Lorenzen (2004), The Hindu World (Editors: Sushil Mittal and Gene Thursby), Routledge,ISBN0-415215277, pages 208-209: "Advaita and nirguni movements, on the other hand, stress an interior mysticism in which the devotee seeks to discover the identity of individual soul (atman) with the universal ground of being (brahman) or to find god within himself".
^Collins 2000, p. 195: "The breakdown of the Vedic cults is more obscured by retrospective ideology than any other period in Indian history. It is commonly assumed that the dominant philosophy now became an idealist monism, the identification of atman (self) and Brahman (Spirit), and that this mysticism was believed to provide a way to transcend rebirths on the wheel of karma. This is far from an accurate picture of what we read in the Upanishads. It has become traditional to view the Upanishads through the lens of Shankara's Advaita interpretation. This imposes the philosophical revolution of about 700 C.E. upon a very different situation 1,000 to 1,500 years earlier. Shankara picked out monist and idealist themes from a much wider philosophical lineup."
^For instances of Platonicpluralism in the early Upanishads see Randall.[174]
^abcStephen Phillips (2009),Yoga, Karma, and Rebirth: A Brief History and Philosophy, Columbia University Press,ISBN978-0231144858, pp. 25-29 and Chapter 1.
^Deussen 2010, p. 42, Quote: "Here we have to do with the Upanishads, and the world-wide historical significance of these documents cannot, in our judgement, be more clearly indicated than by showing how the deep fundamental conception of Plato and Kant was precisely that which already formed the basis of Upanishad teaching"..
^Patrick Olivelle (1998), Unfaithful Transmitters, Journal of Indian Philosophy, April 1998, Volume 26, Issue 2, pages 173-187; Patrick Olivelle (2014), The Early Upanishads, Oxford University Press,ISBN978-0195124354, pages 583-640
^WD Whitney, The Upanishads and Their Latest Translation, The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 7, No. 1, pages 1-26; F Rusza (2010), The authorlessness of the philosophical sūtras, Acta Orientalia, Volume 63, Number 4, pages 427-442
^Mark Juergensmeyer et al. (2011), Encyclopedia of Global Religion, SAGE Publications,ISBN978-0761927297, page 1122
^AM Sastri, The Śākta Upaniṣads, with the commentary of Śrī Upaniṣad-Brahma-Yogin, Adyar Library,OCLC7475481
^AM Sastri, The Vaishnava-upanishads: with the commentary of Sri Upanishad-brahma-yogin, Adyar Library,OCLC83901261
^AM Sastri, The Śaiva-Upanishads with the commentary of Sri Upanishad-Brahma-Yogin, Adyar Library,OCLC863321204
^Paul Deussen, Sixty Upanishads of the Veda, Volume 1, Motilal Banarsidass,ISBN978-8120814684, pages 217-219
^Prāṇāgnihotra is missing in some anthologies, included by Paul Deussen (2010 Reprint), Sixty Upanishads of the Veda, Volume 2, Motilal Banarsidass,ISBN978-8120814691, page 567
^Atharvasiras is missing in some anthologies, included by Paul Deussen (2010 Reprint), Sixty Upanishads of the Veda, Volume 2, Motilal Banarsidass,ISBN978-8120814691, page 568
^Paul Deussen, Sixty Upanishads of the Veda, Volume 1, Motilal Banarsidass,ISBN978-8120814684, pages 114-115 with preface and footnotes; Robert Hume,Chandogya Upanishad 3.17, The Thirteen Principal Upanishads, Oxford University Press, pages 212-213
^abJohn Koller (2012), Shankara, in Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion, (Editors: Chad Meister, Paul Copan), Routledge,ISBN978-0415782944, pages 99-102
^Ben-Ami Scharfstein (1998), A Comparative History of World Philosophy: From the Upanishads to Kant, State University of New York Press,ISBN978-0791436844, page 376
^H.M. Vroom (1996), No Other Gods, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing,ISBN978-0802840974, page 57
^Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty (1986), Dreams, Illusion, and Other Realities, University of Chicago Press,ISBN978-0226618555, page 119
^Archibald Edward Gough (2001), The Philosophy of the Upanishads and Ancient Indian Metaphysics, Routledge,ISBN978-0415245227, pages 47-48
^John Koller (2012), Shankara in Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion (Editors: Chad Meister, Paul Copan), Routledge,ISBN978-0415782944, pages 99-108
^Edward Roer (translator),Shankara's Introduction, p. 3, atGoogle Books toBrihad Aranyaka Upanishad at pages 3-4; Quote - "(...) Lokayatikas and Bauddhas who assert that the soul does not exist. There are four sects among the followers of Buddha: 1. Madhyamicas who maintain all is void; 2. Yogacharas, who assert except sensation and intelligence all else is void; 3. Sautranticas, who affirm actual existence of external objects no less than of internal sensations; 4. Vaibhashikas, who agree with later (Sautranticas) except that they contend for immediate apprehension of exterior objects through images or forms represented to the intellect."
^KN Jayatilleke (2010), Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge,ISBN978-8120806191, pages 246-249, from note 385 onwards; Steven Collins (1994), Religion and Practical Reason (Editors: Frank Reynolds, David Tracy), State Univ of New York Press,ISBN978-0791422175, page 64; Quote: "Central to Buddhist soteriology is the doctrine of not-self (Pali: anattā, Sanskrit: anātman, the opposed doctrine of ātman is central to Brahmanical thought). Put very briefly, this is the [Buddhist] doctrine that human beings have no soul, no self, no unchanging essence."; Edward Roer (Translator),Shankara's Introduction, p. 2, atGoogle Books, pages 2-4 Katie Javanaud (2013),Is The Buddhist 'No-Self' Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?Archived 13 September 2017 at theWayback Machine, Philosophy Now; John C. Plott et al. (2000), Global History of Philosophy: The Axial Age, Volume 1, Motilal Banarsidass,ISBN978-8120801585, page 63, Quote: "The Buddhist schools reject any Ātman concept. As we have already observed, this is the basic and ineradicable distinction between Hinduism and Buddhism".
^Stafford Betty (2010), Dvaita, Advaita, and Viśiṣṭādvaita: Contrasting Views of Mokṣa, Asian Philosophy: An International Journal of the Philosophical Traditions of the East, Volume 20, Issue 2, pages 215-224
^Stoker, Valerie (2011)."Madhva (1238–1317)". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Archived from the original on 12 October 2016. Retrieved2 November 2016.
^Bryant, Edwin (2007).Krishna : A Sourcebook (Chapter 15 by Deepak Sarma). Oxford University Press. pp. 358–359.ISBN978-0195148923.
^Sharma, Chandradhar (1994).A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 374–375.ISBN81-208-0365-5.
^Bryant, Edwin (2007).Krishna : A Sourcebook (Chapter 15 by Deepak Sarma). Oxford University Press. pp. 361–362.ISBN978-0195148923.
^RC Mishra (2013), Moksha and the Hindu Worldview, Psychology & Developing Societies, Vol. 25, No. 1, pages 21-42; Chousalkar, Ashok (1986), Social and Political Implications of Concepts Of Justice And Dharma, pages 130-134
^See Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1858),Essays on the religion and philosophy of the Hindus. London: Williams and Norgate. In this volume, see chapter 1 (pp. 1–69),On the Vedas, or Sacred Writings of the Hindus, reprinted from Colebrooke'sAsiatic Researches, Calcutta: 1805, Vol 8, pp. 369–476. A translation of theAitareya Upanishad appears in pages 26–30 of this chapter.
Dissanayake, Wiman (1993), "Introduction to Part Two", in Kasulis, Thomas P. (ed.),Self as Body in Asian Theory and Practice, State University of New York Press,ISBN978-0791410806
Doniger, Wendy (1990),Textual Sources for the Study of Hinduism (1st ed.), University of Chicago Press,ISBN978-0226618470
Doniger, Wendy; Gold, Ann G.; Smith, Brian K. (2023),Hinduism - The Upanishads, Encyclopedia Britannica
King, Richard (1999),Indian philosophy: an introduction to Hindu and Buddhist thought, Edinburgh University Press,ISBN0-87840-756-1
King, Richard (1995),Early Advaita Vedānta and Buddhism: the Mahāyāna context of the Gauḍapādīya-kārikā, Gauḍapāda, State University of New York Press,ISBN978-0-7914-2513-8
Lochtefeld, James (2002), "Brahman",The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Vol. 1: A–M, Rosen Publishing,ISBN978-0823931798
Mackenzie, Matthew (2012), "Luminosity, Subjectivity, and Temporality: An Examination of Buddhist and Advaita views of Consciousness", in Kuznetsova, Irina; Ganeri, Jonardon; Ram-Prasad, Chakravarthi (eds.),Hindu and Buddhist Ideas in Dialogue: Self and No-Self, Routledge
Müller, Friedrich Max (1900),The Upanishads Sacred books of the East The Upanishads, Friedrich Max Müller, Oxford University Press
Nakamura, Hajime (2004),A history of early Vedānta philosophy, vol. 2, Trevor Leggett, Motilal Banarsidass
Olivelle, Patrick (1996).Upanisads. Oxford University Press.ISBN978-0192835765.
Olivelle, Patrick (1998).The Early Upanisads. Oxford University Press.ISBN978-0195124354.
Olivelle, Patrick (1992).The Samnyasa Upanisads. Oxford University Press.ISBN978-0195070453.
Panikkar, Raimundo (2001),The Vedic experience: Mantramañjarī : an anthology of the Vedas for modern man and contemporary celebration, Motilal Banarsidass,ISBN978-81-208-1280-2
Parmeshwaranand, Swami (2000),Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Upanisads, Sarup & Sons,ISBN978-81-7625-148-8
Samuel, Geoffrey (2010),The Origins of Yoga and Tantra. Indic Religions to the Thirteenth Century, Cambridge University Press
Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli (1956), Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (ed.),History of Philosophy Eastern and Western, George Allen & Unwin Ltd
Raghavendrachar, Vidvan H. N (1956), Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (ed.),History of Philosophy Eastern and Western
Raju, P.T. (1985),Structural Depths of Indian Thought, State University of New York Press,ISBN978-0887061394
Ranade, R. D. (1926),A constructive survey of Upanishadic philosophy, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan
Rinehart, Robin (2004), Robin Rinehart (ed.),Contemporary Hinduism: ritual, culture, and practice, ABC-CLIO,ISBN978-1-57607-905-8
Wadia, A.R. (1956), "Socrates, Plato and Aristotle", in Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli (ed.),History of Philosophy Eastern and Western, vol. II, George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
Raju, P. T. (1992),The Philosophical Traditions of India, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited
.png)
