bold = Main text
Vol., Sect., Part, Chap., Par. grey = Comment text
1 I, Pref | once satisfied that the text of the Avesta, or the Veda,
2 I, Pref | and genuine, and that this text formed the foundation on
3 I, Pref | it not be supposed that a text, three thousand years old,
4 I, Pref | division adopted in the text, I believe it will be necessary
5 I, Pref | tu as.']~in the printed text (VI, 8, 6) is wrong, and
6 I, Intro, 0, 0, 4| vigighatso 'pipâsah, &c., the text of the Maitrâyanîya-upanishad (
7 I, Intro, 0, 0, 4| were found in the original text.~All these questions have
8 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5| CRITICAL TREATMENT OF THE TEXT OF THE UPANISHADS.~With
9 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5| critical restoration of the text of the Upanishads, I have
10 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5| throughout to follow that text which is presupposed by
11 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5| found prior to 1000 A.D. The text, therefore, which Sankara
12 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5| objected that Sankara's text belonged to one locality
13 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5| taken liberties with the text. That may be so, but no
14 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5| establishing throughout that text which served as the basis
15 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5| critical treatment of the text of the Upanishads.~But in
16 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5| is easy to see that the text of the Rig-veda, which is
17 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5| conviction with regard to the text of the Upanishads. In some
18 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5| that had crept into the text long before Sankara composed
19 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5| sarvasyâsya bâhyatah, the original text may have been tad antar
20 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5| reading is found in the text of the Vâgasaneyi-samhitâ,
21 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5| been introduced into the text.~In verse 10 one feels tempted
22 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5| both by the MSS. of the text and by the commentary.~Such
23 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5| Sankara, and to restore the text, as it ought to have been
24 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5| to decline to accept the text which he interprets. The
25 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5| the same time altering the text, to remember that Sankara,
26 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5| the last redactors of the text of the Upanishads, nor the
27 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5| same or nearly the same text which is found in another
28 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5| sarvam asânâti.~II.~III.~The text in the Khândogya-upanishad
29 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5| Lastly, if we come to the text of the Kânva-sâkhâ, the
30 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5| Khândogya-upanishad gives us the original text, or a text nearest to the
31 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5| the original text, or a text nearest to the original,
32 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5| where we must go beyond the text as it stood when commented
33 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5| adhyâya all MSS. of the text read savasan, and this is
34 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5| he believes the original text to have been Satvan-Matsyeshu.
35 I, Intro, 0, 0, 6| has been explained, the text says: 'To him who thus knows
36 I, Intro, 0, 0, 6| of the tenth chapter, the text itself says: Ity upanishad,
37 I, Intro, 0, 0, 8| Upanishad, scil. Brâhmana.~The text of the Upanishad with the
38 I, Intro, 0, 0, 9| mentioned before,~Besides the text of this Upanishad contained
39 I, Intro, 0, 0, 9| Sâma-veda, there is another text, slightly differing, belonging
40 I, Intro, 0, 0, 9| Itara or Itarâ. and that one text of the Brâhmanas and the
41 I, Intro, 0, 0, 9| such MSS. represent the text of the Âranyaka, as adopted
42 I, Intro, 0, 0, 9| had several MSS. of the text and commentary at my disposal,
43 I, Intro, 0, 0, 9| endeavoured to restore that text which Sankara (the pupil
44 I, Intro, 0, 0, 10| have generally followed the text which is presupposed by
45 I, Intro, 0, 0, 10| Sarvopanishadarthânubhûtiprakâsa followed the text of the commentary, while
46 I, Intro, 0, 0, 10| Vedânta-sûtras, followed the other text, contained in MS. A (Cowell,
47 I, Intro, 0, 0, 10| Kaushîtaki-upanishad, not only the text and commentary as edited
48 I, Intro, 0, 0, 10| considering the character of the text and the many difficulties
49 I, Intro, 0, 0, 11| differences between the text, as contained in the Yagur-veda-samhitâ,
50 I, Intro, 0, 0, 11| Yagur-veda-samhitâ, and the text of the Upanishad by itself.
51 I, Intro, 0, 0, 11| 14.~The editions of the text, commentaries, and glosses,
52 I, 3, 3, 1, 2 | khandas, therefore (the text of the Veda) is called Samhita (
53 XV, Intro | has actually published its text with the commentary of Sankarâkârya
54 XV, Intro | Visvesvara.~These editions of the text and commentaries of the
55 XV, Intro | many passages where the text is doubtful, still more
56 XV, Intro | both in restoring a correct text, and in discovering the
57 XV, Intro | which they extract from the text cannot be the right one.~
58 XV, Intro | the right one.~As to the text, I explained in my preface
59 XV, Intro | more than to restore the text, such as it must have existed
60 XV, Intro | often followed a different text, and when, as in the case
61 XV, Intro | Sanskrit texts, and the text of the Upanishads will,
62 XV, Intro | the Vedânta, embracing the text of the Vedânta-Sâra, Allababad,
63 XV, 1 | first copied at Berlin the text of this Upanishad, the commentary
64 XV, 1 | MS. 224 Chambers). The text and commentary of Sankara
65 XV, 1 | it has hitherto been.~The text of the Katha-upanishad is
66 XV, 1 | what I thought the original text of the Upanishad must have
67 XV, 1 | if we have the original text of an author, and can prove
68 XV, 1 | and can prove that his text was corrupted by later compilers~[
69 XV, 1 | of reconstructing an old text by so-called conjectural
70 XV, 2 | Shukoh. My own copy of the text and Sankara's commentary
71 XV, 2 | Roer has published the text, the comcommentary by Sankara,
72 XV, 2 | which is explained in the text itself as meaning an instrument
73 XV, 3 | deserves and receives in the text itself the name of Sikshâdhyâya,
74 XV, 3 | presupposes, however, a different text, as may be seen both from
75 XV, 4 | I have followed the same text in my translation.~Besides
76 XV, 4 | Dr. Roer's edition of the text, commentary and gloss of
77 XV, 4 | is Poley's edition of the text. There is also a translation
78 XV, 5 | connection with the whole text, could be quoted in~[1.
79 XV, 5 | recognise the fact that our text simply repeats the description
80 XV, 5 | due to a corruption of the text, and the number of various
81 XV, 5 | notes to my translation.~The text of this Upanishad was printed
82 XV, 7 | and Maitreyîbrâhmana.]~the text of it, as far as it can
83 XV, 7 | better than the Maitrâyana text. He went near a Muni, viz.
84 XV, 7 | is given in the printed text as V, 1, 2 (pp. 69-76).
|