1

Lenart kof
The Upaniads, Hermeneutics and Indian Tradition
1


1. Dimensions of intercultural philosophy

In his Intercultural Philosophy, R. A. Mall branches the reach of intercultural
philosophy into four areas: philosophy, theology, politics and educational science.
2
We
shall be guided in our progression to hermeneutic problems of interpreting the
Upaniads by the first to approaches: in the early prose Upaniads,
!
argument tends
to remain embedded in the theological speech of "r#hma$as, hile it is precisely these
or%s that include &ith a handful of e'ceptions that shall be specified( the first
e'amples of philosophical thought in India. "ut hat role can intercultural thin%ing
play in this history) Although *arying in its approaches, contemporary intercultural
philosophy is based on a fundamental precept that as grounded in Comparative
philosophy &La philosophie compare, +,2!( ritten by Masson-ursel, a .positi*ist/ of
0omte/s school, as the principle of analogy, hich as later upgraded by Mall 1 in line
ith the contemporary conte't of hermeneutic thin%ing 1 into his method of .analogical
hermeneutics/: e may compare different philosophies &as ell as religions2 here e
are dealing ith the ethos of interreligiosity( ithout thereby ta%ing aay from them
the richness of their thematic differences. In addition, analogical intercultural
hermeneutics is characterised by an aareness of the need to establish such
intercultural sub3ect that not only ne*er acts outside its on, historically mediated
reality, but also can be critical of its on tradition, and understand or enter other
traditions. In his e'plications, Mall does not relay on &.early/( 4adamer, but rather on
5abermas/s criticism of 4adamer/s uni*ersalism.
6
5oe*er, there are to parallels to
Mall/s intercultural approach that might be of interest for our discussion of modern
hermeneutic implications of the Upaniads. We are referring to contemporaneous
intellectuals and pioneers in their respecti*e fields, 7. 8. Mehta &+,+2+,99( and W. 0.
:mith &+,+;2<<<(. =he to used original methods and thematic emphases to pro*ide
important ne insights and open up ne hori>ons to hermeneutic and comparati*e or
intercultural philosophy on one side, and ?=heology of 0omparati*e Religion@ or
comparati*e religious studies on the other.
2
W. 0. :mith defines the theology of religions &he reads a sub3ecti*e geniti*e in
the phrase( as ?a theology of faith in its many forms@, and comparati*e religious studies
as ?a theology of the religious history of us human beings on earth@.
A
"ut hy is it
important that comparati*e and intercultural philosophers should ta%e :mith/s method
seriously) =he anser is that religious history &or history of 0hristianity, to hich
:mith belongs( per se commits to the ethos of .interreligious/ &and thereby
intercultural, to be sure( understanding, as for e*ery 0hristian belie*er, it is precisely
7esus 0hrist ho is that centre of faith that calls for all people to be dran in the
domain of closeness defined by the e'pression .e/.
;
Intercultural philosophy, too,
embraces a &hermeneutic( ethos, underlined by the desire to understand the other. Its
absence is perhaps the most conspicuous characteristic of the early stage of Buropean
or Western Indian studies, hich also dre from the 5egelian philosophicalChistorical
dichotomy beteen the childhood and maturity of mind. :uch approach, supported by
the infallibility of philological analyses, robbed the Indian tradition of its culturalC
historical conte't, as it completely disregarded India/s on interpretati*e history. =his
ma%es it clear hy 7. 8. Mehta, discussing 5egel, his heritage and the Buropean Indian
scholars such as W. 7ones and =h. 0olebroo% in his last lecture of +,99, spea%s of a
total &cultural( hori>on of preCunderstanding, hich also returns the understanding of
Indian sacred ritings &hat according to Indian tradition the Upaniads actually are(
bac% into the domain of Indian intellectual tradition, to hich Mehta himself as a
:m#rta "rahmDn naturally belonged since birth.
E
5oe*er, this is only true to a certain
e'tent: it as 5eidegger ho opened up to Mehta the total hori>on
9
of philosophical
thought, and precisely thereby enabled him to read the Fedic te'ts philosophically and
thus gi*e to the gveda and, particularly, the Upaniads that currently rele*ant
hermeneutic dimension that as to be found neither in the classical Indian nor in the
Western Indian interpretati*e tradition.
,

Ge*ertheless, it cannot be denied that there has been interpretati*e history &i.e.
hermeneutics as the 4ree% s%ill of interpreting( in Indian tradition, as instances of it
can be found both in its beginnings in the form of e'planations of Fedic te'ts and, for
e'ample, in Hri Aurobindo. I. Roy illustrates this using the e'ample of Habara/s
"h#ya &i.e. a ;
th
Ccentury commentary of 7aimini, ho supposedly grounded the system
of JKr*a MLm#Msa(, saying that in interpreting Fedic te'ts, it is e*en necessary to go
against tradition &hich otherise is considered sacred2 :%t. .ati%ramiy#ma/, meaning
.to transgress, to go against/( in order to understand it.
+<
In this conte't, the Upaniads
3
in their original form, characteri>ed by the embedment of FedicCUpaniadic man in the
microcosmic and macrocosmic orld around him, can be considered as an anticipation
of the ?e'istentialChermeneutic trend of *ieing man in his comple'ity.@
++

Jarado'ically, it as precisely through 5eidegger that Mehta/s positioning of
Indian philosophy &and religion( in the course of orld history 1 as an instance of
5usserlianCli%e and 5eideggerianCli%e Buropeanisation and planetari>ation of nonC
Buropean intellectual currents in the 2<th century 1 has enabled Indian philosophy to
find inspiration for a ne beginning in Fedic te'ts. In *ie of enframing &Gestell( as
the predominant mode of today/s e'istence and the planetCide crisis situation of man,
Mehta is con*inced that ?N...O there is no other open ay to us in the Bast, but to go
along ith this Buropeanisation and to go through it. -nly through this *oyage into the
foreign and the strange can e in bac% our on selfChood2 here as elsehere, the ay
to hat is closest to us is the longest ay bac%.@
+2
:uch a *oyage to one/s on tradition
leading through the detour of human%ind/s Buropeanisation is seemingly Puite
contrary to methods of intercultural or comparati*e philosophy stic%ing to the
analogical principle &hich, to be true, is hermeneutically mediated( 1 i.e. the
3u'taposing of different traditions and the elimination of Buropocentrisms from
philosophy. At the same time, Mehta himself stresses that the tas% he set out to
accomplish is completely different from both that of comparati*e philosophy and that
of any allCuniting .mysticism/. Ge*ertheless, the path he chose appears to be the one
that leads to intercultural philosophical aareness of the future, ipso facto opening up
ne hori>ons to comparati*e philosophical thought:

If there is any hope of an ultimate unity of di*ergent philosophies and religions, it lies
not in the throing of dubious bridges across them, not in Puestionable syntheses and
compromises, but solely, through a going bac% of each to its on origins, in the leap
into this saying region, *ibrant ith the possibility of gi*ing *oice to its primordial
ord in a multiplicity of tongues.
+!


It as already 5eidegger himself ho said, referring to Falery/s Puestion of the future
destiny of Burope and the philosophy of the orld:

?It is the great beginning. =here is, of course, no return to it. =he great beiginning
becomes present, as that hich aaits us, only in its coming to the humble. "ut the
4
humble can no longer abide in its occidental isolation. It is opening itself up to those
fe other great beginnings hich, ith their on character, belong in the sameness of
the beginning of the inCfinite relation in hich the earth is contained.@
+6


=his is no the domain of .=hin%ing/, the coming about &reignis( itself in the
re*elation of "eing, hich is also open to Indian philosophical tradition and its origins
1 the gveda, the "r#hma$as, the Upaniads.... It is the starting point of the path along
hich man is touched by speech coming from the spring of truth and through the
godhood of gods. 5o can e, sent and destined into the suggestion of this speech,
respond to it)

2. The Upaniads and the tradition of Indian studies

?Is there Jhilosophy in Asia)@, an essay by the Indian scholar and comparati*e
philosopher Q. :taal, says of the Upaniads: ?=hat the Upaniads are full of absurdities
and contradictions is not something e did not %no before.@
+A
:till, this
characteri>ation, supported by Puotes from the later !rauta s"tras, in hich ?there are
no absurdities, no contradictions, no arbitrariness: e*erything is carefully formulated
and sub3ected to detailed and logical analysis@,
+;
rounds up a long period of such
interpretations of Fedic te'ts since the +,th century 1 e'emplified by authors li%e Q. M.
MRller, 7. Bggeling, Q. Bdgerton, A. ". Ieith and others ho, despite e'cellent
%noledge of the entire Fedic tradition from the :aShitTs through the "r#hma$as and
the Ura$ya%as to the Upaniads, insisted on certain derogatory *alue 3udgements of
those te'ts. -ne of the more negati*e and scornful essays from &the end of( this period
is undoubtedly Bdgerton/s ?=he Upaniads: What do they see% and hy)@
+E
Bdgerton,
ho had &or has( been considered an authority in Fedic studies, approaches the
Upaniads in line ith the anthropologic theory of de*elopmental stages of religion&s(,
i.e. through the magical and utilitarian conte'ts &he also applies the latter to the
gveda(. 5e characteri>es the cosmic identifications of the "r#hma$as, the Ura$ya%as
and the Upaniads as ?identifications of one thing ith another, on the slenderest
possible basis@. 5e also belie*es that they ha*e nothing to do ith philosophy, hich
according to him is ?a search for abstract truth@ and the domain of a .disinterested/
contemplation of reality.
+9
5e considers the *arious vidyas &i.e. ?areas of %noledge@(
and the conclusi*e Upaniadic phrase ya eva# veda &?ho %nos thus@( as simply
5
oriented toards practical goals of &magical( acPuisition of orldly goods, ithout
lea*ing space for any alternati*e interpretation of ho %noledge of the highest things
is related to metaphors of thus acPuired man/s ealth &such as co herds, offspring,
etc.(. What is it, then, that the Upaniads see%) Bdgerton/s anser is: ?=hey are
primarly religious rather than abstractly philosophical. And the historic origin of their
attitude, in primiti*e ideas about the magic poer of %noledge, is still perfectly clear
in them N...O.@
+,

We ha*e already mentioned the possibility that &particularly( the Upaniads
could be understood as e'pressing man/s e'istentialChermeneutic situation in all its
comple'ity. =he possible absence of logicalCanalytical or dialectical methods in them
should therefore not be regarded as their essential deficit in relation to, for e'ample,
4ree% tradition &i.e. Jlato/s great dialogues li%e the $ophist and the %heaetetus(. If
contemporary intercultural philosophy can be tied ith *arious phenomenologies of
the body &.the microcosm/( and the surrounding orld &.the macrocosm/(, that hich
the early Upaniadic philosophers ha*e contributed &also in comparison ith Ionic
philosophers and 5eraclitus( may constitute an important chapter of those
in*estigations. "ut let us return one step bac%: some Indian interpreters 1 "el*al%ar
and Ranade in their &istory of Indian Philosophy &+,2E(, for e'ample 1 also spea% of
?ea% points@ of the first Upaniadic ritings in the late "r#hma$a period:

?N...O e do occasionally meet ith fanciful ordCplays, redundant repetitions,
ritualistic conceits, threadbare symbolising, sacerdotal reards and cursings and
prescriptions and puerilities ithout number N...O. =here are also inconsistencies
and contradictions conscious and unconscious, digressions that largely impede
the progress of the argument N...O.@
2<


As "el*al%ar and Ranade later position the essence of Upaniadic thought in the
domain of intuiti*e %noledge as opposed to the &4ree%( logic of argumentati*e
dialectics, to things can be concluded from this: firstly, that, consciously and
unconsciously, they are still struggling ith the rather hea*y burden of traditional
-riental and older Indian studies 3oined by germs of comparati*e philosophy and,
secondly, that the Upaniadas, ith all their mass of interpretati*e challenges, may no
be understood ithin the bipolarity of the argumentati*e *ersus the intuiti*e &or
poetic(, hich, hoe*er, can only be done if e rely on the possibilities of
6
reinterpreting the Fedic tradition as proposed by Mehta. =he Puestion paraphrasing
the title of the abo*ementioned Bdgerton/s essay 1 'pani(ads, )hat are they* 1, hich
the Indian philosopher A. I. Mohanty as%s himself,
2+
can thus only be ansered by a
reconsideration of the hermeneutic history of Fedic te'ts and their rele*ance for the
present.
It is only thereby that e ill be able to understand Mehta/s reconception of the
oldest Indian religiosity in gveda and the beginnings of philosophy in the Upaniads 1
a reconception guided by 5eidegger/s idea of ne great beginnings of .=hin%ing/ 1, and
his belief in the actual poer of re*itali>ing the content that those te'ts bring into the
present day. Mehta does not belie*e that 5eidegger/s analyses are shut ithin the
domain of .Western/ man:

Is not the tradition of Indian thought one in hich the lapse into representational
thin%ing 1 of a different complection than that in the West, to be sure 1 has already
come under the scrutiny of thought, is it not a tradition in hich an aareness of the
.Vifference/, of the .Identity/, and of the necessity of a .re*ersal/ are present from its
earliest beginnings)
22


Got only the 7apanese or Bast Asian philosophies &Vaoism, "uddhism( in general,
hich 5eidegger sloly and tentati*ely dre in his on thought, but also 1 and
especially 1 the oldest Indian, FedicCUpaniadic tradition, ith hich Western man of
5usserl and 5eidegger largely shares the IndoCBuropean linguistic and cultural
&pre(history, may thus be ePual parallels to the 4ree%WBuropeanWWestern philosophies
and their phenomenologicalChermeneutic tradition.
2!


3. Progression toards origins! from the "g#edic $a%hit&s to the early prose Upaniads

:o ho to defend Fedic te'ts against the abo*ementioned negati*e *aluations
by certain Indian scholars, ho 1 hich is e*en more difficult 1 to recogni>e te'ts that
bring a fourCthousandCyearCold &gveda( or an almostCthreeCthousandCyearCold &the
oldest prose Upaniads( tradition as a presently rele*ant locus of thought touching
upon modern man) Already gveda, the oldest te't of Fedic period, presents us ith
Fedic man positioned ithin the fourfold &here e are folloing Mehta/s philosophical
intuition( 1 i.e. the orld of man, inhabitant of earth, a mortal &martya+, ho,
7
hoe*er, in the capacity of inspired poet is open to the hea*enly orld and its
inhabitants, gods &devat-+(. Fedic Indians called the ten thousand stan>as of Xg*edic
hymns mantras, hich in :ans%rit means ?instrument of thought@, prayer and the
&sacred( speech of Fedic poets. 5ence, a hymn is a mental act, and speech comes to
the Xi 1 poetWseer 1 through br.hman &n.(, i.e. that hich he has grasped and e'pressed
in the hymn. A brahmDn &m., poet, priest2 br-hma/a, m., ho %nosWchants Fedic
te'ts, priest2 br-hma/a, n., Fedic te'ts( is thus one ho, in his mind, .hears/ the mantra
and formulates it poetically. According to =hieme, the original Fedic meaning of
br.hman &hich later became the Upaniadic and Fed#ntic absolute( is ?poetic
formulation@ &dichterische 0ormulierung(, an acti*ity in hich the poet is assisted by
gods: the god Indra is the greatest Xi, hile the god "Xhaspati is the greatest master of
speech. 5oe*er, by being brought and beautifully formulated &sutak(an( into hymns
&s"kta, ?hymn@, ?ell recited@(, br.hman brings truth &1ta( into the orld. %aitir2ya
sa#hit- III, A, 2, + says, in Indra/s *oice, to the poet FasiYha: ?br#hma$aS te
*a%y#mi@, ?I ill re*eal brDhman to youZ@, and through the di*ine gift of poetry, the
god Indra brings to man 1 the mortal 1 the truth, hose spring is in the highest hea*en.
=he guardian of truth is Faru$a, and its spring is the origin of both gods and humans.
=his truth is discerned as luminous, its highest symbol being light.
26
=hus, according to
=hieme, br.hman is an act on the borderline of being inspired ith thoughtWintuition
&dh2( and articulating it &uktha( 1 first in *oice and only later &after remembering it in
mind( in the ritten form of a te't 1, and gveda is an epiphany of this truth, the truth
hich, hoe*er, according to Mehta is not grasped through the representational
relation of some correspondence theory of truth, but rather in the sense of a clearing
&Lichtung(, the opening up of space and the bringing of truth &the 1ta2 by br.hman(
into the orld.
2A
3r.hman is speech, and hat is true in this speech is br.hman.
2;

4radually, br.hman e*ol*ed from the original Xg*edic meanings of a poer 1
manifesting itself as sacred speech &4onda(, .spea%ing in riddles or enigmas/ &Renou(,
or the already mentioned .poetic formulation/ &=hieme( 1 into the Upaniadic first
principle and the later FedTntic absolute. 5oe*er, for the early Fedic thought, if
related to 5eidegger/s and Mehta/s hermeneutic thought, the important analyses are
those made by 7. A. ". *an "uitenen in relation ith another important term of Fedic
tradition, ak(ara &.the syllable/(: in addition to br.hman, this ord can guide us toards
that locus ithin the course of FedicCUpaniadic thought here e are, as earthC
inhabiting mortals, presented ith speech. In gveda, the a%ara as the syllable is the
8
beginning and source of e*ery speech, of all hymns and ritual formulas hile, being
initial, it is also that by hich the hole orld abides.
2E
5oe*er, the syllable as the
initial and the smallest in speech is also that hich is alays preser*ed in that speech:
in the early :#ma*edic 4aimin2ya 'pani(ad 3r-hma/a &+.+(, a%ara is meant for the
first time as the sacred syllable of -M, the first principle of the entire uni*erse, hile in
the later 5u/6aka 'pani(ad &+, +, 6A( it is ?the hypostasi>ed, the higher br.hman, in
contrast to the loer br.hman .Fedic lore/.@
29
=hus, the a%ara as the original syllable
&most translators of the Upanishads later translate the a%ara as .the imperishable/( is
hat grounds and addresses all speech, hat 1 through br.hman as poetic formulation
and, later, truth formulation 1 e can recogni>e, along ith Mehta and according to
*an "uitenen, as the omb and, at the same time, the embryo of all being. It is precisely
in this closeness of the uni*erse, and the course of its being born and reborn at e*ery
moment beyond lapsing into metaphysics 1 the closeness of the first principle as the
first abo*e e*erything else 1 that e can sense the play of the coming about of "eing,
e'pressed in Mehta/s ords:

It may be admitted that the thin%ing of the reignis, the reaching up to this realm, is
mediated in the case of the Western man by the history of his on metaphysical
tradition. Voes it follo from this that such delling in the .Region of the regions/
must alays be mediated) Voes not 5eidegger himself admit that it is "eing in its truth
that is the all empoering, in hich all dispensation has its source) And e*en if it is in
some sense necessarily mediated, must its mediation ha*e the uniPue character of the
Western metaphysical destiny)
2,


If according to Indian scholarly research, br.hman in its original sense may be
understood as the mysterious poer of poetic formulation or hearing by the inspired
Fedic poets, and if the related a%ara is understood as a manifestation of the formation
of speechWord in the silence of the dan of the uni*erse, is it not that their coming
about &reignis(, to hich Fedic poets respond hen forming their ords into
mantras, is the locus from hich e can set off on the longCe'pected hermeneutic
return)

And ho is this possibility related ith the abo*ementioned Western scholarly
criticisms of Upaniadic philosophy posterior to the :aShit#s and "r#hma$as,
9
criticisms that ha*e, as e ha*e seen, ascribed to the Upaniads nonCphilosophical and,
in the orst case, e*en immature and completely ridiculous thought) What encouraged
such *aluations of the Upaniads) According to M. MRller, the Upaniads as the
philosophical conclusion of the Fedas ha*e supposedly o*ercome the Fedic
polytheism, but is it possible in *ie of the hermeneutic return, i.e. the counterC
mo*ement compared ith e*olutionism supposedly inherent in the Fedic te'ts
according to M. MRller to still thin% in such categories) =he meaning of the ord
.upaniad/, hich grammaticallyCsemantically can reliably be analysed as consisting of
the stem .[adC7 &.to sit/( ith the prefi'es .upa/ &.near to/( and .ni/ &.don/( to mean
.sitting don/ &upani(ad, f., .sitting don at the feet of another/, .secret doctrine/(,
!<
as
e'plained by the Indian tradition in a completely different ay than by the Western
Indian scholars. Ha\%ara primarily understands it in a particular sense of .%noledge/.
Western Indian scholars, on the other hand, understand it ithin the range from the
original .sitting at the feet of a teacher/ &8assen and "enfey( to meanings less faithful
to grammar and arri*ed at on the basis of conte'tual meanings ithin the Fedic corpus
1 i.e., .respect/ &of br.hmanW-tman 1 the sacred fire2 -ldenberg(, .secret formula/
&Veussen2 ancient Fedic interpreters also e'plained the .upaniad/ as rahasyam, .a
mystery/( and .connectionWePui*alence/ &Renou, Qal%, -li*elle(. It is precisely the latter
semantic group that can be understood as e'pressing secret &.mystical/( connections
ithin the triangle of the spheres of ritual or% &mantras, hymns, formulas, prayers(,
the &macro(cosmos and the human person &body(, characteristic of the entire Fedic
tradition.
!+
"oth the inspired authors of :aShitas and the first Upaniadic philosophers
of the final period of "r#hma$as and Ura$ya%as desired to grasp the mystery of cosmic
connections. We ha*e seen that br.hman as the mysterious poer of poetic
formulation &of mantras, i.e. stan>as and hymns( is at the same time already the truth
of the poet/s speech. 5oe*er, in the Upaniads stress shifts from poetic 1 mediatory 1
grasping and ording ithin the ritualCcosmic relation, to philosophically articulated
ordings 1 i.e. 8ords or upani(ads of the relation beteen the macrocosm and
microcosm. In the Upaniads, the highest manifestation of this is the connection or
identity beteen br.hman &the allCpermeating and allCgrounding first principle of the
orld( and -tman &the hidden essence and principle of the :elf(. An important term
&related to the ord .upaniad/( for the .connectionWrelation/, used in the initial period
of Indian philosophy, is .bandhu/. And it as precisely the philosophy of ording
cosmic connections &bandhut-( that bothered Western Indian scholars. If this
10
.philosophy/ lac%s argumentati*e poer and 4ree% dialectic methods, hat is it then
that it brings, considered no along the hermeneutic return)
Already the period of "r#hma$as is characterised by the soCcalled
&proto(philosophy of microcosmic and macrocosmic relatedness or connections
&.bandhut#/(, based on the functions of gods in rituals 1 this is the idea of a number of
connections among gods and animate and inanimate things. As here applies the Fedic
thought ?paro%apriy# i*a hi de*#] pratya%ad*ia]@, ?because gods in some ays lo*e
the cryptic and despise the plain@,
!2
many of those connections are hidden to the eyes
of mortals &Upaniads as secret %noledge(. =hus there are not only natural or e*ident
analogies such as beteen the sun and the eye or breath and ind to be found, but also
numerous etymological and phonetical similarities as ell as connections made on the
basis of an .ePual/ number of syllables counted by special methods. Although the
etymological connections do not correspond ith the philological &.scientific/(
etymologies, -li*elle is right to point out that moc%ing scholarly criticisms of such
connections and of frePuent repetitions do not allo us to enter the orld of
Upaniadic philosophy, and e*en less to grasp the perspecti*e of Fedic orld*ie. =he
31had-ra/yaka 'pani(ad says:

And it is also "Xhaspati: "XhatL, after all, is speech, and it is the lord &pati( of speech. :o
it is "Xhaspati. And it is also "rahma$aspati. 3rahman, after all, is speech, and it is the
lord &pati( of speech. :o it is "rahma$aspati. And it is also the :#man. =he :#man,
after all, is speech. .It is both she &s-( and he &ama(/ 1 this ga*e the name to and
discloses the true nature of the :#man. -r maybe it is called :#man, because it is ePual
in si>e &sama( to a gnat or a mosPuito, on the one hand, and to the elephant, to these
three orlds, or e*en to the entire uni*erse, on the other. When anyone comes to %no
the :#man in this ay, he obtains union ith and residence in the same orld as the
:#man. And he is also the 5igh 0hant &udg2tha(. =he .high/ &ut( is, after all, breath, for
this hole orld is held up &uttabdha( by breath. And .chant/ &g2tha( is simply speech.
:ince it is high &ut( and it is chant &g2tha(, it is the 5igh 0hant &udg2tha(.
!!


=he passage is filled ith phonetical .etymologies/ that, although not in line ith
grammatical or philological rules of :ans%rit, uphold the idea of the primacy of speech
&br.hman( and the chant &udg2tha( in hich it is e'pressed. UdgLtha is frePuently
identified ith the sacred syllable of 95 in the Upaniads, hich is hy it is of
e'treme importance for the ritual act and thought, and for the related cosmicCmystical
11
connectedness of that hich is, ith that hich is the hypoke:menon of e*erything.
:oundCphenomenal similarities and connections unite phenomena and things, and gods
and people into a string of hierarchical relations, into ?an integrati*e *ision by
identifying a single, comprehensi*e and fundamental principle hich shapes the
orld.@
!6
=hus, all things of the orld are lin%ed in an allCencompassing series of
microcosmic &adhy-tma#, i.e. relating to the body( and macrocosmic
relationsWconnections &earth 1 body, aters 1 semen, fire 1 speech, breath 1 ind, sun 1
eye, sides of the s%y 1 hearing, moon 1 mind etc.(, grounded either in #tman 1 the allC
encompassing hile also the innermost essence of man and other beings and things 1 or
beyond any spaceWtime, in the sacred and eternal play of the coming about &reignis(
of the orld, i.e. br.hman:

=his earth is the honey of all beings and all beings are the honey of this earth. =he
radiant and immortal person in the earth and, in the case of the body &tman(, the
radiant and immortal person residing in the physical body ^ they are both one/s self
&-tman(. It is the immortal2 it is br.hman, it is the Whole N...O =his ind is the honey of
all beings and all beings are the honey of this ind. =he radiant and immortal person in
the ind and, in the case of the body &tman(, the radiant and immortal person residing
in breath ^ they are both one/s self &-tman(. It is the immortal2 it is br.hman, it is the
Whole N...O =his self is the honey of all beings and all beings are the honey of this self.
=he radiant and immortal person in the self and the radiant and immortal person
connected ith the body &tman( ^ they are both one/s self &-tman(. It is the immortal2
it is br.hman, it is the Whole. =his *ery self is the lord and %ing of all beings. As all the
spo%es are fastened to the hub and the rim of a heel, so to one/s self &tman( are
fastened all beings, all the gods, all the orlds, all the breaths, and all these bodies
&tman(.
!A



+
=he first *ersion of the te't as published in :lo*ene in the periodical Phainomena _II &2<<6(, no. 6,1
A<, pp. +<,1+22.
2
R. A. Mall, Intercultural Philosophy &8anhamW"oulderWGe `or%W-'ford: Roman a 8ittlefield
Jublishers, 2<<<(, p. ;.
!
=he early prose Upaniads include the 31had-ra/yaka, the Ch-ndogya, the %aittir2ya, the ;itareya and
the <au(2taki 'pani(ad= According to -li*ell &'pani(ads, tr. J. -li*elle, -'ford: -'ford Uni*. Jress,
+,,9, p. '''*i(, the probable date of origin of the first to &preC"uddhist( Upaniads is the EthW;th
century "0.
6
0f. ibid=, p. +;.
A
)= C= $mith> A Reader, in K. Cracknell (Ed.), &-'ford, 2<<+(, p. 2+A.
;
It is precisely the interreligious ethos that R. A. Mall gi*es as an e'ample of intercultural dialogue,
defining it as the e'istence of a *ariety of paths leading to the same religious truth &ibid=, p. +9(.
12

E
=his is the conte't in hich e are to understand Mehtabs hermeneutic characteri>ation of Western
Indian or, more precisely, Fedic scholars, gi*en ithin his discussion of Hri Aurobindo: ?N...O the Western
scholar is relati*ely indifferent to hat the Feda, as ?ruti, has meant, from age to age, to the people for
hom it as and is a sacred te't, and to hat it may yet come to mean for them in the future.@ &B. 7.
"rill, 4= L= 5ehta on &eidegger, &ermeneutics and Indian %radition, W. 7. 7ac%son &Bd.(, &8eidenWGe
`or%WIcln, +,,2(, p. +;!(. Gaturally, contemporary Fedic scholars ha*e come to be aare of this danger
1 M. 7edie, for e'ample, in his introduction to his translation of the Upaniads first gi*es, ?out of respect
for Indian tradition@, Han%arabs e'planation of the term .Upaniad/, and respectfully returns to it in the
conclusion, folloing a detailed and critical analysis of arguments proposed by &Western( Indian
scholars. &M. 7edie, gvedske upani@adi &fagreb: Matica hr*ats%a, +,,,(, p. +! ff.(.
9
=his is the paraphrase used by W. 7ac%son in the title of his bJreludeb to Mehtabs ritings &see ibid=, pp.
+C26(.
,
J. -li*elle points to Whitneybs note in "chtling%bs edition of the Upaniads, typical of the search of
Western Indian scholarsCphilologists for the btrueb meaning of these ritings: ?And the translation is of
that character hich I pointed out in a paper in this 3ournal Ni.e. ;merican 4ournal of Philology, authorbs
noteO some years ago as most to be desired 1 namely, simply a :ans%rit scholarbs *ersion, made from the
te't itself, and not from the nati*e comment, and aiming to represent 3ust hat the treatises themsel*es
say NgO@ &J. -li*elle, ?Unfaithful =ransmitters: Jhilological 0riticism and 0ritical Bditions of the
Upaniads@, in 4ournal of Indian Philosophy 2; &+,,9(, p. +E!(. -li*elle also stresses that despite modern
approaches, interpretations of Upaniadic te'ts are still somehat mar%ed by an unfa*ourable
disposition toards Indian commentators and thereith the more bconser*ati*eb editions of the
Upaniads.
+<
0f. I. Roy, ?5ermeneutics and Indian Jhilosophy@, in V. J. 0hattopadhyaya a 8. Bmbree a 7.
Mohanty &Bd.(, Phenomenology and Indian Philosophy &Indian 0ouncil of Jhilosophical Research, Ge
Velhi and 0enter of Ad*anced Research in Jhenomenology: "oca Raton, +,,2(, pp. 2,<!<+.
++
Ibid=, p. 2,,.
+2
B. 7. "rill, 4= L= 5ehta on &eidegger, &ermeneutics and Indian %radition, W. 7. 7ac%son &Bd.(,
&8eidenWGe `or%WIcln, +,,2( 1 AQoreord@, p. 'ii.
+!
Ibid=, p. ,< &0h. A: ?=he sa*ing leap@(. Gaturally, Mehta arns that once this path has been beaten,
Indian philosophy should not loo% bac% anymore but again start to thin% in the Indian ay.
+6
M. Heidegger, lucidations of &olderlinBs Poetry (tr. Keith Hoeller) (New York: Humanity Books, 2000), p.
201.
+A
Q. :taal, ?Is there Jhilosophy in Asia)@, in 4. 7. 8arson and B. Veutsch &Bd.(, Interpreting ;cross
3oundaries> Ce8 ssays in Comparative Philosophy &Jrinceton Uni*. Jress: Jrinceton Mass., +,99(, p.
22+.
+;
Ibid=, p. 222.
+E
=his as Bdgertonbs +,2, presidential address deli*ered before the American -riental :ociety.
Jublished in 4ournal of the ;merican 9riental $ociety 6, &+,2,(, pp. ,E+2+.
+9
Ibid=, p. ,, ff.
+,
Ibid=, p. +2<.
2<
:. I. "el*al%ar, R. V. Ranade, &istory of Indian Philosophy, Dolume %8o %he Creative Period
&Joona: "il*a%uh3a Jublishing 5ouse, +,2E(, p. +6+.
2+
A. I. Mohanty, 'pani(ads Eediscovered, 0h. + &?Upanishads, What are they)@(, &0uttac%: A%ash
Jubl., +,,2(, pp. ,2,. Mohanty re3ects both the orthodo' &Indian( approach, hich refuses to recognise
any be'ternalb criticism of Upaniadic te'ts, and the approach of those Western Indian scholars ho
understand the Upaniads in terms of their apparent irrational &i.e. emoti*e( and thus nonphilosophical
tendencies &see ?Jreface@(.
22
B. 7. "rill, 4= L= 5ehta on &eidegger, &ermeneutics and Indian %radition, W. 7. 7ac%son, &Bd.(, &8eiden
WGe `or% WIcln, +,,2(, p. ,!.
2!
-n the relation beteen the Western and 7apanese traditions in 5eidegger see M. 5eidegger, 9n the
)ay to Language, tr. by Jeter V. 5ert> &Ge `or%: 5arper and Ro Jublishers, +,E+(: ?=o see it so is
in its on ay 4ree%, and yet in respect of hat it sees is no longer, is ne*er again, 4ree%@ &p. !,(.
26
:ee J. =hieme, ?"rDhman@, in his <leine $chriften, Qran> :teiner Ferlag &Wiesbaden, +,96(, pp.
,++2,. =he passage from =: cit. after ibid=, p. ++9.
2A
7. 8. Mehta, ?Reading the ig*eda: A Jhenomenological Bssay@, in Phenomenology and Indian
Philosophy, p. !+6 ff. Mehta polemicises ith 5. 8Rders, the author of a monograph on Faru$a and the
Xti &4cttingen: 5. 8Rders, Daruna IFII, Fanderhoec% a Ruprecht, +,A+W+,A,(.
2;
!atapatha br-hma/a II, +, 6, +< says: ?*#g *ai brahma tasyai *#ca] satyam e*a brahma@, ?=he brDhman
is speech: of that speech it is. =he brDhman is the truthj &the :%t. te't cit. after %he !atapatha br-hma/a,
13

Part I &tr. 7. Bggeling(, Velhi: Motilal "anarsidass, +,,!, p. 2,;(: hoe*er, in this passage =hieme no
longer translates the term .brDhman/ as .poetic formulation/ &dichterische 0ormulierung( but already as
.truth formulation/ &)ahrheitsformulierung(, indicating the shift that too% place in the "r#hma$as &that
are no longer :aShitTs and thus mantras that ere poetically formulated by Xi3i( as ell as in the
earliest Upaniads. Gaturally, it as already in the early Upaniads that ideas of br.hman made one step
further toards br.hman as the principle by hich all beings are hat they are, and finally the absolute.
2E
$tudies in Indian Literature and Philosophy> Collected ;rticles of 4= ;= 3= van 3uitenen &ed. 8.
Rocher(, Velhi: American Institute of Indian :tudiesWMotilal "anarsidass, +,99, +AE+E,: ?tata] %araty
a%araS tad *ik*am upa 3L*ati@, ?therefrom flos the :yllable: on it li*es all the orld@ &gveda +.+;6.622
:%t. te't cit. after ibid=, p. +A,(.
29
0f. ibid=, pp. +;+ and +;;.
29
B. 7. "rill, 4= L= 5ehta on &eidegger, &ermeneutics and Indian %radition, W. 7. 7ac%son &Bd.(,
&8eidenWGe `or%WIcln, +,,2(, p. ,!.
!<
Qor a detailed and critical o*er*ie of the entire history of interpreting the term .upaniad/ see M
7edie, gvedske upani@adi &fagreb: Matica hr*ats%a, +,,,(, pp. +!2+.
!+
0f. 'pani(ads &tr. J. -li*elle(, &-'ford: -'ford Uni*. Jress, +,,9(, p. lii ff.
!2
"UU 6, 2, 2. &'pani(ads, op. cit., p. AE(.
!!
"UU +, !, 2<26 &'pani(ads, p. ++ff.(. "Xhati is a type of metre &consisting of !; syllables in a fourCline
*erse(, hile it also means .e'tensi*e/, .large/. :#man is a liturgical te't that, in opposition to the hymns
of the Xg*edic and `a3ur*edic :aShita chanted at three pitchCle*els, is sung at fi*e or se*en le*els.
Identity also e'ists beteen the prefi' .ut/ &.up/, .high/( and .uttabdha/ &.held up/(. -n -li*elle see ibid.,
li* ff.
!6
Ibid=, p. l* &-li*elle cites from 7. "rereton/s essay ?=he Upanishads@, in Wm. =. de "ary and I. "loom
&ed.(, ;pproaches to the Indian Classics &Ge `or%: 0olumbia Uni*. Jress, +,,<(, p. ++9(.
!A
=he passages are from "UU 2, A, +.2 2, A, 62 2, A, +6+A. &'pani(ads, pp. !<^!2(.