It is a matter for congratulation that the outlook of the students of Indian Monism is growing more and more promising. Dr. Duessen is coming forward with his magnificent treatise on the history of philosophy in which it is his intention to trace to its primal beginnings, what in after times turned out to be such a wonderful engine of influence in Sankara's hands. And the German Vedantin in his "Seeing Upanishads des Veda" has done a signal piece of service to all Sankarins by bringing together all the Upanishads that should prove excellent auxiliaries in construing that somewhat abstruse system which is at once a closely-reasoned metaphysics and a devotional theology. The translation of Siddhanta-lesa-sangraha of Appayya Dikshit has been recently announced by Messers. Lazarus of Benares and parts of it have already appeared in the Benares journal, The Pandit. As our readers may be aware, it is a precious Advaita work passing in review every philosophical system prevalent in India during his time, and establishing Sankara's as the only cult that could satisfy both the head and the heart. But lamentably enough, Appayya's position has generally been grossly misunderstood by Agama-Vadins, about which we propose to speak on a future occasion. And Mr. Mahadeva Sastry's activities are too well known to need any special mention; his translations of the minor Upanishads with the Advaita glosses are gems in every respect, and we note with pleasure his attempts to make popular the teachings of such revered apostles of the monistic faith as Sureswara, Vidyaranya and the rest. The Englishing of the Taittiriya Upanishad with its commentaries by Sankara and his followers is undertaken in very scholarly style, and three parts of it have already been given to the world. And the volumes of translations of Sankara's commentaries on the Katha Prasna and Chhandogya forming volumes II, III, and IV of Mr. Seshacharri's series, of which this paper is a review, reached completion only a few months back. We are informed that the Brihad-Aranyaka and the Svetaswatara are in an advanced state of preparation, and with their publication added to the extant translations on the Isavasya and the Mandukya from the pen of Mr. Vasu and the late Mr. Dvivedi respectively we can say a goodly part of the Upanishad portion of the Prasthana-traya has been made accessible to the English-speaking public. Of course, it is needless to mention that on the side of the Brahma-Sutras and the Gita, Sankara has long been familiar to English readers through the labors of Messers. Thibaut and Mahadeva Sastri.
Now, coming to the subject of this notice, we need not say more about the translation of Sankara's commentaries on the Katha and Prasna Upanishads forming the second volume of Mr. Seshacharri's series than that it is the work of the same gentleman who has done the first volume already reviewed in our pages and that there is nothing to add to or take away from our remarks therein made.
But we must confess to a strong sense of disappointment when we come to the volumes of the Chhandogya. Mr. Jha was already well-known by his translations of Vijnanabhikshu's Yogasarasangraha, Vachaspti Misra's Sankhya Tattva Kaumudi and the Karyaprakasa, the first two of which would fairly have faxed a translators' powers. And it was but fair to expect that one who had ventured to grapple with those works should at least be capable of rendering Sankara's commentary with accuracy and fidelity, if not indeed with grace and ease. For, the value of Sankara's gloss consists mainly in its being an interpretation of the Upanishads from the point of view of his Advaitic philosophy, however much such a proceeding may be prejudicial to what to our ideas may seem a true interpretation, and quite independently of the fact that without his aid many a passage would be almost hopelessly meaningless. To this end Sankara was necessitate, not only by his own native bent of mind, but from the vicissitudes of his avowed purpose, viz., that of reconciling all the seemingly contradictory texts and of formulating in accordance rather with their general trend of thought than with their mere words, a noble and an organic philosophy, to be precise and exact in the choice and definition of his words, and to modify somewhat in sense certain words of the philosophical terminology already existing. The necessity thus becomes apparent that the translation should be primarily literal, giving the original technical terms alongside of their renderings whenever it is expedient, and that ideas of elegance should not be allowed to interfere in a manner that would frustrate this object on which the value of the translation as such depends.
We are sorry to say however, that our translator cannot be congratulated upon the way in which he has achieved this point of accuracy. Not only is the rendering in many of the controversial portions very free, so free indeed sometimes that one cannot hope to get any clear and definite ideas from it, but what is a far more serious mistake the translator has been so grossly careless that not infrequently the English is such as to convey the very opposite of what the original means. We may perhaps give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Jha and opine that the printer is the more responsible party, though this by itself can never count for anything as an excuse; but we are constrained to lay the whole blame on the translator when it is found that four times at least, (all detected on the first running glance over the book), the negative particle (na in Sanskrit) has been systematically ignored, under such circumstances, that if it had been noticed the construction of the translated sentences must have been entirely different.1
[1 I shall give the references. Pt. I p.33. line 5; p. 255, i.3; Pt. 11 p.72, 1.1; p. 211.1.10., p. 217.1.11. On. p. 51.1.2. (Part II) the sentence as translated means exactly the reverse of what the original intends to convey, through the mistaken substitution of denied for said. One would think from this that the author does not understand the use of a double negative in English. The word conscious at p. 61. Line 17 and Part II must be unconscious.]
In some places whole sentences have been omitted, a few running to three or four lines2
[2 Pt. I p. 36.1.4; p. 233. After line 8 (about three sentences); Pt. II p. 373. Line 18. (about 3 sentences). It may be that this is due to the translator having followed a different edition from that I use, which is the Anandasrama one. Even if it were so, the entire trouble must be laid to the charge of the translator who has not cared to mention the edition he has followed.]
even. As if to compensate for the space we have some words from Anandagiri put in along with Sankara's words, such that without the Sanskrit edition one would naturally put them to the credit of Sankara himself.3
[3The seven lines on P. 10 of Part II, from 3 to 10 are taken bodily from Anandagiri's gloss. There is nothing in the translation to distinguish this. The clause 'the author of the Vritti among others' put within brackets on p. 147.1.17 of Part II is Anandagiris's again, not Sankara's. But possibly the translator might have thought that the brackets were a sufficient indication of the words not being due to Sankara. But this charitable view will fall to the ground when it is seen that on p. 155 line 1, and p. 163.1.11, the brackets serve no such purpose. It may be observed that in the first two volumes, brackets are introduced only to mark off parenthetical clauses, and are not left to perform the heterogeneous functions to which they are condemned in the last two. We may conveniently put together in this place Sankara's references to previous teachers, a very rare thing with him, for the convenience of those of our readers who may be interested in the matter. For the significance of these references, our readers must be referred to Max Muller's Six Systems of Indian Philosophy where there is some discussion of the subject. The Vrittikara, who is generally quoted only to be disagreed with , is said by the commentators on Sankara's Bhashya to be referred to in the following places:-
Chandogya Upanishad Bhashya under I.2-10. (Anand.Ed. p.25.); under II.23-1. (Anand.Ed.p.104); under IV.2.3.(Anand.Ed.p.185) Sankara himself refers to "Acharyas" the commentator does not say to whom it points. There is a reference, I think, to the Vrittikara in the Kena Upanishad Bhashya, but I now forget the place.
Brahma Sutra Bhashya under I.1.23. (Ananda.Ed.p.137); under I.1.19. The explanation given in the first part of the commentary is attributed by Govindananda to the Vrittikara. Under I.2.23. Govindananda says that the Vrittikara is here controverted. This Vrittikara is commonly believed to be the same person as the Bodhayana, whose verbose and lengthy Vritti on the Brahma Sutras Ramanuja professes to have closely followed in his Sribhashya, of which in fact he claims his work to be merely a convenient and handy summary. It is doubtful if this Bodhayana can be identified with the author of the Kalpa-Sutra.
Dramidacharaya, an ancient commentator on the Brahma Surats, is understood by Anandagiri to be followed by Sankara in his interpretation of a certain passage in the Chhandogya Upanishad (III.8) involving much Pauranic astronomy of a fanciful and mythological character.
Under I.3.28. (Anand.Ed. p. 285), Sankara himself quotes by name with great respect Bhagavad Upavarsha, who is supposed to be the earliest commentator on the Brahma Sutras on the Advaitic side. The same person is referred to along with Sabara, the earliest commentator on the Purva Mimamasa Sutras and whose work is still extant in discussing the Vaiyakarana theory of Sphota as elaborated by Patanjali. This Max Muller has shown is considerably similar to the Lagos theory of Greece, surviving into modern times in the Christian Trinity through the gospel of St. John to which we may add our Missionary friends give a wide berth. Strange to say Anandagiri in his gloss on this passage (III.3.53. Anand.Ed. p.947) mentions Upavarsha as the Vrittikara, a fact quite opposed to the common theory that that designation was applied only to Bodhyana. We cannot at present say what significance ought to be attached to this passage of Anandagiri's.]
We do not know what grievous sin the poor much abused Smritis have committed that they should be so ignominiously ejected in favor of the Sruti, though the sentence by that process would make but a meaningless jumble. On p.79. Part I., Sankara states the purvapaksha view that performance of the Srauta Karma conducts one to the Southern Path or the Path of Smoke.4
[4The very same mistake again recurs on p. 87.1.2 and p. 215.1.1 Part I. The distinction between the two Karmas is this. Srauta Karma is that prescribed in the Vedas, viz. sacrifices, which form the principal subject of the Mantra as well as the Brahmana. Smarta Karma is that prescribed by Smriti or tradition, viz. such of household and other ceremonies as are now found embodied in the Grihya Sutras. The point is that the former have distinct Vedic authority on which to rest while the latter is custom pure and simple.]
Instead, in the translation we find a contrast drawn between Karma prescribed in the Sruti and that prescribed in the Veda. At first sight one is apt to be considerably bewildered by what appears to be a very subtle distinction, too subtle for us poor readers, but on which seem to hang the extremely momentous issue of return or non-return to this mad whirl of a Samsara, of either bondage or deliverance. These are merely a few of the mistakes of commission of a graver kind. As regards minor ones their name is legion, and we can only hope, in order that our readers may be spared, to give a few taken at random here and there. Instances there are which seem to point in only one direction, viz., that the translator could not have made out the bearing of the Sanskrit passages. We have a glaring example on p. 355 (Pt. II) where, by a curious chance, the same word which occurs twice with the interval of a few lines, are given diametrically opposite meanings.5
[5 The expression is Bahir-vishaya-apahrita-chetusath, which is first translated 'with their minds withdrawn from external objects.' A few lines below the same expression comes out as "having their minds conquered by the external objects of the world." We are conscious that Sanskrit samasa will very easily allow this twisting; but a translator can surely exercise a little appreciation of the context and some modicum of judgment.]
And it we may judge by a passage in his book6
[6Part II, p.49, 1.6. Here Sankara comments upon the word ishtapurte, explaining ishta as sacrifices, and purta as works of public utility. The next word datta means alms, and since alms given at a sacrifice form part of it, Sankara excludes it from datta, and explains it to be alms given outside the vedi or sacrificial altar. In the translation this distinction is entirely lost.]
we must think the translator has no idea of what a vedi is. It is, as every Brahmin must know, the sacrificial altar; and alms given outside the vedi can only mean that not given in connection with a sacrifice. It is difficult to find out how he has made the phrase to mean "alms given outside the house." Here is a sentence which we may defer any of our readers to decipher. "…all longings have an end within themselves, like the Akasa, like the wind produced by lightning, and like the fire with all its fuel burnt off."7
[7Part II. P.270. fifth line from bottom.]
This curious piece of "natural philosophy" which Mr. Jha here spontaneously invents can only be put on a par with Sankara's idea of the female crane conceiving without a male.8
[8 Sankara speaks of this as being well-known. Vide Brahma Sutra Bhashya under III.1.19. In his Bhashya on II.1.25, he explains that it conceives on hearing the sound of thunder.]
It is too late in the day to assert that wind is produced by lightning. The true translation would be this. "…like the lightning into the Akasa, like the breeze into Vayu, and like the fire into the burnt-off fuel, all desires have an end within the Atma." The idea is that just as the lightning flashes for a moment across the Akasa, rising from it and disappearing within it, these desires also originate from the Atman, overspread and dim its pure radiance for an infinitesimally short space of time, and then disappear within their own cause. A havoc has been made in the translation of this magnificent simile. On page 147, Part II, we have this truly astonishing statement. "Because the mind is fastened to Prana – i.e. the mind being the substratum of the Deity pointed to by Prana; - the mind indicates the human soul." It is philosophy with a vengeance to make the mind the substratum of the Deity. Sankara would have stood aghast to find himself paraded under this garb. The real version would be, "Because the mind is fastened to Prana, the mind having as substratum the Deity, for which the word Prana is applied in the text, it indicates the human soul (Jiva)." 9
[9We may here put together a few more mistakes. It is the first time we hear of a 'cast of the dice.' This spelling occurs about twenty times. Pt.I.p.249. The Gayatri does not consist of four feet of four syllables each. If Mr. Jha had only taken the trouble to count the syllables of the mantra which as a Brahman he ought surely to know, he would have found 24. It consists according to the Upanishad of four feet of six syllables each. This is a fanciful idea introduced for the purpose of bringing the Gayatri also alongside of the other things the Upanishad mentions having a fourfold character. Really it consists of three feet of eight syllables. In Yoga books a fourth foot is said to exist which could not be pronounced, but which is to be meditated upon in one of the highest stages of Yoga. The idea of the fourth foot is most probably due to the Brihad Aranyaka, in which it is said that it could not be obtained by anybody. (V. 14.4-6). The Sutasamhita, on the other hand, seems to take a middle course. It says that the Gayatri can be divided either into three feet of eight syllables, or into four feet of six syllables each, the former being employed in japa and the latter in puja. (Yajna-Vaibhava-Khanda). (Ad. 6.81.7) There is a mistake on the very first page. The goal of both the paths, that of Light and that of Smoke is said to be Brahma. The fact is that the goal of the latter is Chandraloka, and Brahmaloka is only to those who proceed by the path of Light. Here again is a sentence which is the acme of nonsense, "the serene Being, the human soul, being reduced by Ignorance to identity with the self – etc." Thus Sankara is much to pronounce the highest state of his own philosophy to be due to Ignorance. All this confusion results from translating Sarira as 'Self'.' (Part II. P.357). Again, the sentence beginning of line 3 of p.359 (Part II) is absurd. On p.48 (Part II), "ending in the Satyaloka, outside the Artery" should be "ending in the Satyaloka, not outside the Anda or universe." Another bad mistake is at p.58. line 10 of Part II; 'the exit from' ought to be struck out the idea is that exit from the condition of the corn is extremely difficult; but still more difficult is the obtaining of a connection with procreating agents.]
All these mistakes seem to be due to a misunderstanding or a non-understanding of the text. A good many more owe their origin to a careless and inexact use of the English language. This now and then lands Mr. Jha in splendidly ludicrous utterances such as this choice bit. "By Food is only meant an accessory, an appurtenance; and they (people who perform sacrifices, who are said in this Upanishad to become, after their death, food for the Gods)10
[10These are my words.]
are not literally swallowed up by the Gods; the fact is that they become the appurtenances of the Gods, in the shape of women, cattle and the like." (P.50 Part II). The unsophisticated reader would no doubt at once imbibe the idea that venerable Dikshits undergo on their death, the very undignified process of transformation into women for the dubious purpose of enjoyment by the Gods, that some of them are even unceremoniously turned into four-footed beasts of the field for a like end, reduced apparently to the helpless state of the too much requisitioned but unfortunate Aja (goat), which was the means of the dikshits' migration to the happy realm of the Gods. This somewhat elaborate joke, forced thus unwittingly upon the unfortunate commentator, he would have made all haste to disavow. Even the placid soul of a sannyasin would have been tossed as by a thunderstorm at this unseasonable sarcasm aimed at the solemn process of 'spiritual ecdysis' of our cumbrous dikshits, being fathered upon himself thus clandestinely. The very innocent object of the commentator was only to show that it was not meant that Dikshits were really eaten of the Gods, but that they were spoken of as food in that they conduced to the enjoyment of the gods, just in the same sense as women, cattle etc., which a man possesses are metaphorically called his food in ordinary usage. He proceeds in this quite harmless manner, when Mr. Jha would perforce clap this absurdity upon his unwilling shoulders.
It would seem to any reflecting man that the doctrine of Karma as enunciated by Hindu religious books was the very best antidote to the shallow fatalism common enough among the masses of every county. And it is a striking feature indeed of Hindu society, which seems to gather within its capacious and elastic bosom all manner of opinions under the sun, and withal by such queer juxtapositions and mutual jostling's so to round them off as to make them very accommodating indeed to each other, that in spite of the momentum gathering during ages of this doctrine, the words readiest upon the Hindu's lips are "good or bad fortune," words expressive of that bad species of fatalism which can find no law or order in the universe. Curiously enough, Mr. Jha in his thoughtless translation of a passage11
[11Part II, p. 176 line 3.]
puts these two tendencies in the sharpest and most illogical contrast thus; "then by some stroke of good fortune due to some of his past deeds, he (the person desirous of Moksha) obtains a sympathetic person, knowing the true Brahman (as Guru)." It is a wonder how Mr. Jha unnecessarily brought in this glaring contradiction especially as the original puts the disciple's good deeds as the direct cause of his finding a true Guru. Mr. Jha wonderfully again hits the nail right on the head when he says, "In fact there is no difference of time between the reaching of true self and the reaching of perfection."12
[12Part II. P. 177 line 1.]
Precisely so, nothing can be truer: for both mean the same thing. Only he has put in "the reaching of perfection" in place of "the falling off of the body" which is found in the original. Probably in Mr. Jha's opinion shuffling off one's mortal coils would constitute the height of perfection.
Amid this complex mass of weltering confusion it would be idle to expect any uniformity or appropriateness in the rendering of technical terms or terms used in restricted or peculiar senses. The word jiva13
[13 Once it is translated as life, a word which usually is made to stand for prana. Here it has been changed and for prana there is breath.]
is rendered in one place as the "living self," and in another as "the human soul" chetana14
[14 The word comprises in itself the three ideas of intelligence consciousness and life. It thus partly resembles the conception of modern scientific monism, which regards consciousness and intelligence as being present at least in a rudimentary and potential form, even in the lowest organized beings. This monism would also say that the potential existence of such faculties must be assumed in the inorganic world also.]
is variously "animate" and "intelligent" sruti15
[15 The incongruity of the rendering will be clearly seen by looking to the etymology of the words. Sruti is that which has been heard; scripture is that which has been written.]
sometimes appears as "scripture," at other times as sruti itself. The word Purusha is made to figure as 'Man,' in a few places a person, and rarely as purusha itself. There is no objection to the word 'person' which is the usual one, though that too is somewhat inappropriate to denote the jiva in its pristine purity as freed from the bondage of Maya, but it is strange that the translator has pitched upon Man, which is the least expressive of the ideas and associations connected with purusha. No reason can be divined why the Sanskrit word which has been used by himself without any explanation so many times should thus be made to transform itself proteus-like. As the passages stand, one cannot suspect that both person and man are meant to denote only one word. The best thing to be done under such circumstances would have been to give the Sanskrit expression side by side with the rendering. It is in this matter only that the most unreasoning parsimony as regards space has been allowed free play. Surely none would have been the worse for a little clearness gained at the cost of four or five pages more added to a volume. When in the first two volumes this plan has been followed to a great extent, we cannot understand why the same thing should not have been done in these also.16
[16 We might as well mention here one point on which there is some doubt. The word Pundarika (1.5.7) which the eyes of the Purusha in the sun is said to resemble, is translated by Mr. Jha as "the red lotus" and Kapyasa (the ischial callosities of the monkey according to Sankara) which qualifies pundarika seems to bear out his view. Against it is the other fact that Amara and other lexicographers make it the name of the white lotus. The Suta Samhita copies the Upanishad verbatim (Gnanayogakhanda 19.7) and evidently takes the lotus to be red and kapyasa to refer to the monkey. Max Muller on the other hand translates pundarika as the blue lotus and thinks that kapyasa was probably originally the name of some flower which was forgotten in Sankara's time. Sankara is at considerable pains to show that no disrespect is shown by this comparison for the Purusha's eyes are not directly compared to the kapyasa, but only, he says to the lotus. Probably Sankara took his explanation from the Suta Samhita. This passage in the Samhita is one of the few instances where a Purana does not spoil a text in the quoting. A good example of the latter process will be found in the words 'Tad vishnoh paramam padam.' "This is the highest place of Vishnu" occurring in the Vaishnava mantras of the Rig Veda. In the Mandala Brahmanopanishad this is applied to the Manolayasthana or place of the dissolution of the mind and so far the sentence has improved its status. (Curiously this same sloka is found in the Uttaragita and is quoted as from it in the enigmatic Raja Yoga Bhashya ascribed by some to Sankara. This Bhashya can almost be said to be a paraphrase of the Mandala Brahmana Upanishad and the strange thing is it never thus avows itself and this sloka also seems against such a theory). In the Puranas, the Brihannaradiya for instance, it has become such a meaningless formula that it promises the self-same highest place of Vishnu as a reward of the decay of the intellect ultimately sliding into unmeaning ceremonialism.]
The word Brahman, anyone, even but cursorily acquainted with the Vedanta will know, bears two totally distinct significations. When it is used in the neuter gender, it denotes the impersonal and one Atman, while as a masculine it stands for the creator of manifested forms. Prajapathi, the third person of the Hindu Trinity. In order to mark this distinction clearly, it had been usual to employ Brahman, the crude base, for the former, and Brahma for the latter. The whole distinction is completely lost in these two volumes and without the aid of the original it would be a matter of guess-work what Brahma, which is the word used throughout, is meant to represent in each individual case.
Theosophical literature is especially rich on the natural history of the astral and devachanic planes, and in its recondite nomenclature it may well vie with the epoch marking labors of Linnaeus himself; and Mr. Leadbeater, who seems to be the great authority on this subject, bids fair to out-Linnaeus even Linnaeus. But it could not have been thought for a moment that a merciless pelting of the reader with quasi-erudite terms would contribute to the clearness of his comprehension. A host of strange and fearful elementals stare him in the face where he would gladly have met the old familiar Bhutas. Mr. Jha might well have presumed that a few benighted individuals might be straying, who had not caught the faintest odor of theosophy.
It is a fruitless quest to search after elegance of language in this work, especially since even a person with a good and easy command of English would find himself altogether non-plussed by Sankara's almost algebraic style. The only fruit of the endeavor would be the picking up of such absurd words as worshipability, copied probably from Coleridge who must be given the credit of having attempted, happily in vain, to enrich the language with such ungainly and misshapen words, and such vulgarisms as big men.17
[17 Part II. pp. 68 and 312. This is a novel use of enliven, "The living self ceased to enliven the branch." The word meant is probably animate. On p. 87 (Part I) by a small misprint, "the Udgitha of the dogs" has become elevated into "the Udgitha of the gods." ]
Mr. Jha's attempts at scientific expression are not as happy as can be wished. This is the first time we hear of the ovule of a woman (Part II. p. 150). The fatal objection to this word is that it is a purely botanical term and can never be applied to the animal kingdom, and even in botany it has been so much objected to as disguising the genetic relationship of the organ so named, that it is now quietly dropping out of use. The word for which Mr. Jha mistook this, is probably ovum. But here again the idea conveyed by sonita in the original can never be expressed by ovum, for the very simple reason that the Hindus had no idea of the latter. Their theory was this, that corresponding to the seminal fluid is man, is the catamenial flow which they supposed to be the reproductive element in the woman; and by the combination of the semen and the blood (for sonita means nothing else than blood), a bubble-like thing called budbuda is formed, which develops gradually into the child.18
[18 See for an account Sankarananda's commentary on the Garbhopanishad, which and the accounts in the Purusha, for instance the Vayu Purana and the Suta Samhita, are all evidently taken from Susruta, the earliest of our medical authors whose works are now extant.]
If the translator had only proceeded straight on by his mother-wit instead of hankering after learned expressions, he would have saved himself from this absurdity.
A small matter which would have saved the reader a good deal of wearisome search might have been attended to. With the modern facilities, it would have been a very easy matter to supply the references to quotations from the Sruti, as has been done in the translation of the Sri Kantha Bhashya appearing in our journal. Col. Jacob's Concordance at one's elbow would have been sufficient. But we are very glad to find at least one decided improvement in these volumes over the former ones. Whenever sentences are found requiring explanation Mr. Jha has been at pains to make them really intelligible, generally by incorporating Anandagiri's words in his translation. Even then it might be wished that he had been more liberal.19
[19 The commentary on V. 10.2 ends with this sentence, more enigmatical than a sibylline verse; "Thus has been explained the path of the gods, ending in the Satyaloka, - as says the mantra 'between the father and the mother etc.'" Anandagiri's lucid explanation might profitably have been inserted here. He says, the father is the devaloka, the mother is the earth, and between these two is the universe comprising the path of knowledge and the path of Karma, and these paths are not outside the anda or universe.]
We have been at such considerable pains to review the work thoroughly, only in the hope that in a second edition which must sooner or later appear, these errors may be corrected and the omissions supplied, and that the book may then take its place as a standard translation of Sankara. For though there are numerous versions of the Upanishads, Mr. Seshacharri's series is the only one that gives Sankara's commentaries in entirety and as such it is to be hoped that Mr. Seshacharriar will spare no pains to make it the enduring and permanent publication which his enlightened liberality so well deserves. It is quite true that Mr. Jha was at the very great disadvantage of being nearly a thousand miles off the place of printing and that many a mistake would not have occurred if it were otherwise. This must be borne in mind in reading this review. It is not in any spirit of paltry fault-finding that the volumes are criticized in what would look a very severe strain; and if this leads only to the Brihadaranyaka being turned off with workmanlike finish, the reviewer would feel amply repaid.
- M. NARAYANASWAMI AIYAR.