Interpreting the Upanishads

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

The postings seem sufficiently slow today that I feel free to offer

the following on a topic not related to bhakti and jnana. A change

of pace keeps the mind fresh.

 

Yesterday, Sadanandaji and I briefly discussed the Brahma Sutras on

this list. He said something like: You can read the Upanishads

directly, if you feel no confusion. So I did some research on the

web and discovered that interpreting the Upansihads directly is far

from trivial! A good collection of PDF articles by Ananda Wood can

be found at

 

http://www.infinityfoundation.com/ECITwoodarticlesframeset.htm

 

He studied with a Swami Atmananda of Kerala who passed on in 1959. I

very much like this Swami's emphasis on 'Consciousness is All', right

in line with my own uncompromising interpretation of Advaita, which

Sadandaji has officially and recently approved of! In an article

called 'Interpreting the Upansishads', available at the above site,

there is an interesting discussion on the difficulties of

interpreting such simple Sanskrit words as 'idah' and 'adah' for

'this' and 'that'.

 

Here is an excerpt from that article. It may seem a bit long, but it

is quite interesting and I presume quite relevant to this site:

 

 

On the whole, the language of the Upanishads is simple. The main problems

of interpretation do not come from any excessive complexity of grammar,

nor from overly long and technical words. Since the language used is an

early form of classical Sanskrit, there is sometimes a little trouble with the

occasional archaic usage whose meaning may not be fully remembered; but

this is relatively minor and peripheral.

 

The more basic problem comes from the philosophical character of the

Upanishads. Their essential purpose is to stimulate reflection and enquiry.

So they often raise questions about what words and concepts mean. This

applies particularly to ordinary, common words like 'know' or 'be', or 'true'

or 'real', or 'self' or 'world', or 'this' or 'that'. While the meaning of such

words is open to question, so too is the interpretation of the Upanishads,

which use these words in a way that puts them up for questioning.

In the peace invocation that is often placed at the beginning of the

BrhadAranyaka and Isha Upanishads, there is a striking example of simple

language thus used to provoke thought. The language is so simple that it is

possible to make a somewhat intelligible word for word translation of the

relevant passage, with the order of the words unchanged:

 

pUrnam adah pUrnam idah

pUrnat pUrnam udacyate

pUrnasya pUrnam AdAya

pUrnam evAvashishyate

 

The full, that; the full, this.

From the full, the full arises.

Of the full, the full taken back,

the full alone remains.

 

Though just about intelligible, the translation is of course awkward. First,

there is a problem of idiom. 'The full, that' is a common Sanskrit construction

whose idiomatic equivalent in English is: 'That is the full.' Similarly, 'the

full taken back' could be translated more idiomatically as 'when the full is

taken back'. Second, by translating the word 'pUrnam' too narrowly, as 'the

full', the philosophical implications are not quite rightly conveyed. 'pUrnam'

also means 'complete'. In the context of the Upanishads, this clearly refers

to 'complete reality', which might be better translated as 'all'. So

to try making

the translation less awkward, perhaps it could be modified as follows:

 

That is all. This is all.

All arises out of all.

Of all, when all is taken in,

what remains is only all.

 

This is still quite a literal translation, and it is now in fluent

English; but it

has a problem of tone. At worst, it could be read as silly doggerel, showing

up the absurdity of mystical philosophy. At best, it could be construed to

have a tone of mocking irony, using a light-hearted facade to say something

more profound. In neither case does it convey the philosophical tone of

quiet certainty that is found in the original.

 

The trouble is that cryptic utterances like 'All arises out of all'

are no longer

taken seriously, in modern philosophical discussion. In fact, they are held up

as glaring examples of 'trivial' or 'tautological' or 'woolly' or

'fuzzy' language,

which serves as a cover for half-baked ideas that have not been properly

questioned and tested. If anyone makes this kind of cryptic statement today,

the immediate response, quite rightly, is that the speaker should explain

further and be more specific about what is meant.

 

How does one try to solve this problem of tone in translating the simple,

but sometimes cryptic statements of the Upanishads? There is a temptation

to dress up the translation in strange or complicated language, to make it

seem that hidden depths are lurking below; but this would be merely

pretentious.

The only way out is to make a specific interpretation; and to translate

accordingly, perhaps adding some further explanation and commentary.

In the above passage from the peace invocation, the words 'that' and 'this'

need more specific interpretation. So does the word 'pUrnam', which is not

quite adequately translated as 'the full' or as 'all'. In the

retelling reproduced

below (from FTU, page 42), the word 'that' is interpreted as the known

world; the word 'this' is interpreted as the knowing self; and 'pUrnam' is

interpreted as complete reality, which is both knower and known. Accordingly,

the passage is taken to describe reality as non-dual consciousness:

underlying all mentally created divisions of experience into 'this' which knows

and 'that' which is known. From underlying consciousness, all appearances

of objects arise: as they are perceived by body, senses and mind. And back to

this same consciousness, all appearances return: as they are understood

and assimilated into knowledge.

 

That world out there, this self in here,

each is reality, complete:

from which arises everything,

to which all things return again,

in which all seeming things consist;

which stays the same, unchanged, complete.

 

However, there are other ways of interpreting this passage, as can be seen

by comparing a few available translations. Many of them use the traditional

concept of 'Brahman': which can be thought of as all-inclusive

reality, underlying

the creation and appearance of everything in the universe.

 

In the Ramakrishna Math's publication, The BrhadAranyaka Upanishad, 'that'

is interpreted as 'Brahman', and 'this' is interpreted as the

'universe'. 'pUrnam'

is translated as 'infinite'. Accordingly, the passage is taken to

describe reality

as 'the infinite (Brahman)' from which the universe emanates and into which

the universe is assimilated. The resulting translation is:

 

That (Brahman) is infinite, this (universe) too is infinite. The infinite

(universe) emanates from the infinite (Brahman). Assimilating

the infinitude of the infinite (universe), the infinite (Brahman)

alone is left.

 

Swami Sarvananda, in IsAvAsyopanisad, translates 'that' as 'the invisible'

and 'this' as 'the visible'. pUrnam is translated as 'the Infinite'.

Accordingly,

the passage is taken to describe reality as 'the Infinite': from

which the visible

universe 'has come out', while the underlying 'Infinite remains the same'.

The translation is:

 

The invisible is the Infinite, the visible too is the Infinite. From the

Infinite, the visible universe of infinite extension has come out. The

Infinite remains the same, even though the infinite universe has

come out of it.

 

Swami Prabhavananda and Frederick Manchester, in The Upanishads, translate

'that' as 'the things we see not' and 'this' as 'the things we see'. 'pUrnam'

is translated variously: as 'filled full with Brahman', as just

'Brahman', and as

'all' or 'all that is'. Accordingly, the passage is taken to describe

reality as all-filling

'Brahman', out of which 'floweth all that is ... yet he is still the same'.

The result is a relatively free and stylish translation, as follows:

 

Filled full with Brahman are the things we see,

Filled full with Brahman are the things we see not,

From out of Brahman floweth all that is:

From Brahman all - yet he is still the same.

 

R.C. Zaehner, in Hindu Scriptures, translates 'that' as 'beyond', 'this' as

'here', and 'pUrnam' as 'fullness'. The result is a relatively close,

yet stylish

translation, as follows:

 

Fullness beyond, fullness here:

Fullness from fullness doth proceed,

From fullness fullness take away:

Fullness yet remains.

 

S. Radhakrishnan, in The Principal Upanishads, makes a carefully literal

translation and adds a short commentary. In the commentary, 'that'

is interpreted

as 'transcendent'; 'this' as 'immanent'; and 'pUrnam' as 'Brahman',

whose integrity is unaffected by the created universe.

 

Translation:

That is full; this is full. The full comes out of the full. Taking the

full from the full the full itself remains.

 

Commentary:

Brahman is both transcendent and immanent.

The birth or the creation of the universe does not in any manner

affect the integrity of Brahman.

 

Swami Sivananda, in The Principal Upanishads, also makes a fairly literal

translation. But he adds the word 'all' before 'that' and 'this'.

And he translates

'pUrnam' as 'the Whole'. The result is:

 

The Whole is all That. The Whole is all This. The Whole was born of

the Whole. Taking the Whole from the Whole, what remains is the

Whole.

 

Shree Purohit Swami and W.B. Yeats, in The Ten Principal Upanishads,

make a translation that is both graceful and nearly literal; by leaving 'that'

and 'this' as they are, and by translating 'pUrnam' as 'perfect'. The

translation

is:

 

That is perfect. This is perfect. Perfect comes from perfect. Take

perfect from perfect, the remainder is perfect.

 

What do these differing interpretations show? They show at least how

one short passage of simple language can throw into question the meaning

of concepts like 'this' and 'that' , 'full' and 'complete',

'creation' and 'dissolution',

'appearance' and 'reality'.

 

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

 

Benjamin - Few years ago I gave a talk on the PuurnamadaH in Madras

organized by Prof VK. He wrote a condensed version of my talk for

adviatin list. There may be complete version also with the title 'Logic

of Spirituality"- It is centered on the interpretation of the particular

sloka. It may be of interest to you.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

http://search.