[In the following essay, Pandit comments on the dialogue style of the Upanishads as well as on the actual etymology of the word upanishad.]

The meaning of the word upanishad is difficult to tell, for its etymology is doubtful. According to Max Muller, the term means “the art of sitting down near a teacher, of submissively listening to him” (from upa, below; ni, down, and sad, to sit).¹ But, according to Sankara, the word is formed by adding the suffix kvip and the prefixes upa and ni to the root sad, meaning: that which destroys ignorance.² If we accept this definition, then the term would mean that kind of knowledge (and not the texts) which destroy ignorance: thus gradually releasing man from the fetters of samsara. It is knowledge which would enable man to attain the state of undifferentiation. However, this definition is not only doubtful, but far-fetched. Sankara's definition does not seem to be the correct one if we follow the texts carefully. From the careful study of the texts of the Upanishads we know that these texts were considered something “mysterious” in the sense that some kind of “esoteric” knowledge was contained in them. Thus the Upanishads are spoken of as mysterious, because they impart a knowledge which is esoteric or secret in character, a knowledge which cannot be given to those who do not belong to the mystic circle.

Our investigation, therefore, should be such that it violates neither the laws of grammar nor the witness of the texts. Max Muller seems to be right in interpreting the term as sitting near the teacher. It seems that the word is derived from the prefixes upa-ni and sad, meaning to sit near a person. This interpretation of the term seems to fit in with the traditional way of teaching, in which the student sits near the teacher, and the lessons learnt from the teacher are not public in character, but are possessed of a halo of secrecy.³

When a particular text is referred to as an Upanishad, it means that the said text contains the doctrines about the Brahaman, Atman, the nature of empirical existence and the world. The explanations or descriptions of the doctrines are expressed in a variety of ways. For example, when an expression like neti, neti⁴ or jalan⁵ is used, we are confronting an Upanishad. The Upanishads, therefore, may be said to be possessed of a secret knowledge which the teacher imparts to the student in a private session.

There are some scholars who believe that the term upanishad means adoration or reverence.⁶ In other words, the term is said to connote the same meaning which the word upasana means. This meaning is construed on the basis of belief that the texts themselves speak of the adoration of the Brahman or Atman. But the use of the upa-sad as a verb in the upanishad is quite different and distinct from the meaning of worship. As we have already said, the word, if given the textual meaning, means to go near a teacher to receive secret knowledge about the unity or identity of the Brahman and Atman. But if we translate the term as “worship”, then duality is involved, in that there is the worshipper and the worshipped. But the Upanishads do not teach duality, only unity.

The Upanishads must be looked upon as a counterpart to the Aranyakas, in that there is a continuous development of thought from the Samhita period.⁷ In this continuous development of thought the Samhitas are replaced by the Brahmanas, Brahmanas by the Aranyakas, and the Aranyakas, in turn, by the Upanishads. This does not imply that the secret instruction, that is, the upanishad, was developed from the secret instruction in the forest. The warrior class, who were opposed to the Brahmanic ritualistic and sacrificial religion, developed a new philosophy.⁸ They expressed this philosophy in esoteric formulas such as tajjalan. It is the instruction of these secret formulas which came to be known as the Upanishad. Thus this new philosophy owes its birth to the Kshatriyas rather than to the Brahmans.⁹

The Kshatriyas seem to have played a key role in the development of Upanishadic doctrines. This we learn from the texts, where the kings play a leading role in the enunciation of new doctrines. In the Chandogya¹⁰ we are told how the five Brahmans along with Uddalaka received instructions in the secret doctrines from the king Asvapati Kaikeya. In another story¹¹ we are informed that a certain scholar, Gargya Balaki, tries to explain the nature of Brahman to the king Ajatasatru. The scholar puts forward 12 points (sixteen in the Kaushitaki) to prove his doctrine, but the king refutes them all. Then the king explains the nature of Brahman by using the analogy of deep sleep. Again the Chandogya tells us that the king Pravahana Jaivali instructs the Brahmans about ether as the basis of all things. Narada, known for his Vedic lore, gets his instructions from Sanatkumara. The doctrine of transmigration is received by Aruni from the king Jaivali.¹²

However, the Upanishadic texts as we have them are definitely the works of the Brahmans. The Kshatriyas might have been responsible for inventing new doctrines against the age-old sacrificial doctrines of the Brahmans.

The texts as we have them are not the representation of the original intellectual activity. The present form of the texts has resulted from many a discussion and probing. The initial Upanishads seem to have been the Aitareya, Brihadaranyaka, Chandogya, Taittiriya, Kaushitaki, and the Kena. To the second group belong the Katha, Isa, Svetasvatara, Mundaka. To the final group belong the Prasna, Maitrayaniya, and the Mandukya.

It is not easy to determine the exact date of the composition of the Upanishads. However, this much is certain that most of the doctrines were already existent in the time of the Buddha.¹³ Therefore, the date of the earliest Upanishads may be placed between 600 b.c. and 500 b.c. As far as the later Upanishads are concerned, we face the same problem that no definite date can be assigned to them. Hopkins assigns 400 b.c. to the Katha and the Svetasvatara.¹⁴

The technique of expression or style adopted by the Upanishads is that of dialogue. It reminds one of the dialogues of Plato. The difference between the two lies in the fact that in the former case there is no logical or coherent development of thought. One finds jumps and leaps in discussions. In the case of the latter there is not only a logical development of thought, but also a clarity of expression. Therefore, the comparison between the two forms of dialogue is not of much use. However, there has been a certain development in style, in that discussions are held in all seriousness. There is also refinement of language.

The texts are mainly written in a dialogue style in which two or more than two persons are involved on a particular topic.¹⁵ Only those persons are allowed, most of the time, to put questions to the teacher who are regular disciples. The topics of discussion vary from teacher to teacher. Some teachers are materialistic, and hold the belief that the purusha is the essence of food”.¹⁶ Others are monists who hold that the individual ego is identical with the absolute. There are even nihilists who think that after death there is no consciousness.¹⁷

The remarkable thing we find in these dialogues is the sense of urgency and competition. Everyone is engaged in proving his point of view to be the correct one. The highest place of honour we find in these discussions is given to the king Janaka and to Yajnavalkya. In a straight contest Yajnavalkya is able to defeat nine persons.¹⁸ Not only men are engaged in philosophical discussions, but women too. The wives of Yajnavalkya excel in their philosophical discussions. Even the demons seek instructions from the god Prajapati.¹⁹

Although the dialogues are filled with a sense of urgeney, one does miss the lack of logic in them, and there is not that dialectical tension which brings new life to the discussion. The enquirer is most of the time completely ignorant, and therefore oftentimes questions verge on absurdity. The teachers are not free from faults. They never try to prove their point, but rather engage in dogmatic assertions. Almost all assertions of Yajnavalkya are dominated by this dogmatic outlook.²⁰

As far as the technique of argument is concerned, it is the same as we find in the Brahmanas. The only difference the Upanishads make is the employment, in a faint manner, of induction in terms of enumeration.²¹ However, the use of words and phrases show a marked development in feeling.²² Thus the employment of such terms as neti, neti, Atman, Brahman, tat tvam asi expresses a new dimension of understanding. But there are also terms which express nothing, such as jalan²³ or tadvanam.²⁴ The use of analogies and metaphors oftentimes turns out to be fanciful.²⁵

Notes

1. Max Muller, Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 319; cf. Satapatha Brahmana, ix. 4.3.3.

2. See Sankara on Brihadaranyaka Up., Taittiriya Up., Kathopanishad, and Mundaka.

3. Cf. Oldenberg, Prolegomena, pp. 291 ff.

4. Brihadaranyaka Up., ii. 3.6; iii. 14.1.

5. Chandogya Up., iii. 14.1.

6. Oldenberg, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gessellschaft, i. 457 ff.

7. Paul Deussen, Philosophy of Upanishads, p. 16.

8. Hopkins, Journal of the American Oriental Society, xxii. 335.

9. The Kshatriyas seem to have revolted against the Brahmanical supremacy. The cause of the revolt, in part, seems to have been that the Kshatriyas had to pay an enormous amount of gold in the form of sacrificial fee to the Brahmans. The fee for the various sacrifices was fixed. The normal fee consisted of cows, gold and valuable garments (cf. Satapatha Brahmana, ii. 1.1.5; iv. 3.4.14). The most coveted thing was gold, for it was “immortality”, “the seed of Agni” (cf. Rigveda, viii. 51.2). The one who gives cows or gold as a sacrificial fee gets from the gods whatever he desires: yam kamam kamyate so asmi kamah samridyate (Satapatha Brahmana, i. 9.3.6; Chandogya Up., v. 3.7).

10. Chandogya Up., v. 11-24.

11. Brihadaranyaka Up., ii. 4; Kaushitaki Up., iv.

12. Ibid., vi. 2; Chandogya Up., v. 3-10.

13. Cf. Rhys Davids, Dialogues of the Buddha, i, pp. ix ff.

14. Hopkins, op. cit., xxii. 336, n. 1.

15. See the Dialogues of the Brihadaranyaka.

16. Taittiriya Up., ii. 1.1.

17. Brihadaranyaka Up., ii. 4.12: na pretya samjna'sti.

18. Ibid., iii. 1; cf. Satapatha Brahmana, xi. 6.3.

19. Ibid., ii. 4; ix.5; Chandogya Up., viii. 7 ff.

20. Ibid., iii. 1 ff; iv. 3.23 ff; Chandogya Up., v. 12.

21. Chandogya Up., vi. 1.4-6.

22. Ibid., iii. 14.

23. Bohtlingk, BSGW, pp. 159 f.

24. Kena Up., 31; Hopkins, op. cit., xxii, 362.

25. Cf. Oldenberg, Die Lehre der Upanishaden, p. 183.