1855.] Bihliograpliical Notes on the Upanishads. 41 



To this list is to be added the Kaushitaki TJpanishad with S'an- 

 kara's commentary, with which Mr. Elliot favoured me but lately. 

 The first twelve Upanishads of the above list are also mentioned by 

 Dr. Weber; all the others from No. 13, with the exception of 

 Nos. 21 and 33, are new to us. 



The whole number of Upanishads, as far as we know at present, 

 is 138 (v. J. of the As. S. XX., p. 619). Of eleven only has the 

 text been published, viz. 1 . The Brihad Aranyaka. 2. The Chhan- 

 dogya. 3. Katha. 4. Kena. 5. Mupdaka. 6. Maudukya. 7. Pras- 

 na. 8. I's'a. 9. Aitareya. 10. Taittariya and 11. S'wetas'watara. This 

 number is indeed but small, at the same time it includes almost all 

 the most valuable. The importance of the Upanishads depends upon 

 the date of their origin and upon the influence which they exer- 

 cised in the formation of the systems of philosophy among the 

 Hindus. According to the received definition, the Upanishads are 

 such parts of the Yedas as embody their metaphysical and theolo- 

 gical view which may be compressed into the formula, that the 

 finite soul is essentially the same with the infinite spirit or Brahma. 

 The Vedas themselves were written at different times, the Atharva 

 Veda being the most modern one, so that as a rule the Upanishads 

 of the Atharva Veda were composed later than those of the other 

 Vedas, and in consequence do not exhibit the doctrine in the same 

 originality and simplicity as those of older date. According to the 

 theory laid down in the Mahavakya Eatnavali, (e. 1. 612-613) 

 there are 1,180 Upanishads equal to the number of Vedaic schools, 

 one Upanishad belonging to every school. This theory is, however, 

 fanciful, and not borne out by fact, and even the Eatnavali admits, 

 that 108 Upanishads are the principal ones, which it enumerates 

 and making no mention of any other, probably because the author 

 did not know of any more. 



As to the doctrine of the Upanishads, it appears even on a casual 

 glance, that they widely differ from each other, some of them exhi- 

 biting the most ancient philosophical dogmata preserved among the 

 Hindus, others in many of their leading tenets representing a more 

 modern epoch, their only connexion with the ancient Upanishads 

 being, that both maintain the identity of the finite and infinite 

 spirit. Colebrooke would acknowledge only those works as Upa- 



