172 
The Alla Upanishad. 
[No. 3, 
cult to understand tlie text, and several well-read pandits to whom 
I have shown the MS. declare it to he in a corrupt Sanskrit, unintel¬ 
ligible to them. I have myself had the greatest difficulty in gues¬ 
sing at the meaning, and only succeeded in doing so, by following 
the same plan which is adopted in decyphering ancient inscrip¬ 
tions. That I have been throughout successful in coming to 
the meaning which the author attached to his sentences, I cannot 
venture to affirm ; but the matter is of so little import that mistakes 
on my part are not likely to lead to any material consequence. 
The work opens in the usual Hindu style, with a salutation to 
Ganes'a, and the invocation of the mystic Om; but it has no 
s'dnti mantra or benediction of any kind. This is remarkable, as 
there is no Upanishad that I am aware of (and I have examined 
nearly a hundred of them, both authentic and apocryphal,) which 
has not its appropriate s'dnti, introduced both at the beginning and 
the end. It is probable, however, that the author of the Allah 
Upanishad, though doubtless familiar with some of the authentic 
Upanishads, was not aware of, or did not notice, the constancy of 
the s anti in that class of compositions, and hence the omission ; or 
perhaps he accepted the Om, as sufficient for the purpose, and did 
not think a more amplified version of it necessary, and this is very 
likely, as he must have noticed that Yedic compositions other than 
Upanishads begin with Om only, without any other s'anti. 
The object of the work is to identify Allah with the gods of the 
Vedas, and to establish his pre-eminence. Accordingly the author 
starts by saying that he who sustains all things and is the bestower 
of blessings is Allah, and he is the same with Mitra and Varuna. 
He is the God of gods, and manifest in his own light. He is like¬ 
wise the great god Indra, and the ultimate object which the 
devout seek by their sacrifices. Warming up by these assertions, 
the author next describes him as “ the eldest, the greatest, the 
noblest, the perfect, and even Brahma himself.” This Allah, 
however, is not the deity whom the prophet Muhammad of Mecca 
glorified, but he whom Akbar so adored. The anxiety displayed 
in making the distinction is worthy of note, and shows clearly the 
object with which the work was got up. Akbar is described as a 
messenger of God, but, either owing to the difficulty of introducing 
