Śvetāśvatara-Upaniṣad 1.1-3: Große Fragen und große Antwort

"Brahman" ist hier allgemeiner Name für "Prinzip", wie Kaush.4,1. Brh.2,1,1. Chând.6,11,1. Brh.4,1,2 fg.

This translation seems the one which Saṅkara himself prefers, for on p. 277, when recapitulating, he says, kim brahma kâranam âhosvit kâlâdi. In comparing former translations, whether by Weber, Roer, Gough, and others, it will be seen that my own differs considerably from every one of them, and differs equally from Saṅkara's interpretation. It would occupy too much space to criticise former translations, nor would it seem fair, considering how long ago they were made, and how imperfect were the materials which were then accessible. All I wish my readers to understand is that, if I differ from my predecessors, I do so after having carefully examined their renderings. Unfortunately, Roer's edition of both the text and the commentary is often far from correct. Thus in the very first verse of the Svetâsvatara-upanishad, I think we ought to read sampratishthâh, instead of sampratishthitâh. In the commentary the reading is right. Vyavasyâm is a misprint for vyavasthâm. In the second verse we must separate kâlah and svabhâvah. Yadrikhhâ no very unusual word, meaning chance, was formerly taken for a name of the moon! Instead of na tvâtmabhâvât, both sense and metre require that we should read anâtmabhâvât, though the commentators take a different view. They say, because there is a self, and then go on to say that even that would not suffice. Such matters, however, belong to a critical commentary on the Upanishads rather than to a translation, and I can refer to them in cases of absolute necessity only, and where the readings of the two MSS., A. and B, seem to offer some help.

Alle aufgezählten Prinzipien können nicht für sich allein, sondern nur als Bestimmungen an einem Selbste ( tman) gedacht werden, welches daher unter allen Umstanden der Urgrund ist. Aber das empirische Selbst kann dieser Urgrund nicht sein, da es nicht Herr ist, Lust und Schmerz zu schaffen, sondern ihnen unterworfen ist.

Svabhâva, their own nature or independent character.

Union presupposes a uniter.

tmâ is explained by Saṅkara as the gîvah, the living self, and as that living self is in his present state determined by karman, work belonging to a former existence, it cannot be thought of as an independent cause.

Die individuelle Seele besteht nicht aus dem Purusha und der von ihm unabhängigen Prakriti (Shakti) nebst deren Guna's (Sattvam, Rajas, Tamas), sondern es ist Gottes eigene Kraft (âtma-shakti), welche, in ihre eigenen Qualitäten (svagunaih) verhüllt, als Seele erscheint. – Schärfer kann der Gegensatz gegen die Sânkhyalehre wohl nicht ausgesprochen werden.

Devâtmasakti is a very important term, differently explained by the commentators, but meaning a power belonging to the Deva, the Îsvara, the Lord, not independent of him, as the Sâṅkhyas represent Prakriti or nature. Herein lies the important distinction between Vedanta and Sânkhya.

Kâlâtmabhyâm yuktâni, kâlapurushasamyuktâni svabhâvâdini. tman is here taken as synonymous with purusha in verse 2.