¹ Henceforth referred to as ŚU.

² Among editors, translators, and exegetes of the Upanisad, those following the advaita line sre, in the first place, Deussen (Sechzig Upanishad's des veda.3.Auflage, leipzig,1921)andRadhakrishnan, (The principal Upanisads,New York,1953);Google Scholaramong the' are Johnston, E.H.'Some Sāmkhya and Yoga conceptions of the Śvetāśvatara Upanisad', JRAS,1930,855Google Scholar –78 Early Sāmkhya RAS prize Publication Fund,15 London,1937, A.Silburn Śvetātara Upanisad Les Upanishad: texte et traduction sous la direction de Louis 7,Paris,1948Google Scholar, and Hauschild, R.Die Śvetāśvatara–Upanişed Abhandinungen fuũr die Kunde des Morgenlandes,542 2 Leipzig,1927.It is hardly necessary ti mention that the interpretation of SU by Śa0144;kara and his followers ancient and modern has precious little to do with the thought originally expounded in the Upanisad.While Śńkara's views on ŚU are known from his references in the commentary on the Brahmasūtra, Hauschild has shown conclusively that the Śvetāśvatarabhāsya often attributed to Śańkara is an advaita.commentary written probably by Nārāyanabhaţţa as late as the sixteenth century.For the present noter, however, the question of the suthorship of the bhāsya is of no paramount importance.Google Scholar

³ This type of confusion is not peculiar to ŚU alone. A mix-up in the 'hierachyof evolutes occurs also in the Katha Upanisad(e.g.iii,1). it all obviously stems from the gradually developing systematization of the Sāmkhya philosophy. One has, however, to keep in mind that ŚU not only applied the already existing tenets of the Sāmkhya doctrine but helped to formulate it.

⁴ As an example of an inreslistic interpretation of the intention and thought of ŚU, there is the almost astonishing footnote by Deussen (op.cit.,308)40ŚU vi,13 which reads in part: tat lcāranam sāmkhyayogādhigamyam jnātnādevam.… To this Deussen says that by Sāmkhya and Yoga are not to be understood the later (my italics)systems of that name, as they are in many ways at variance with the doctrines of the Upanisads. The expressions sāmkhya and yoga are to be understood, he says, in the way Śańkara interprets them in the commentary to Brahmasūtra 2.1.3, i.e.vaidikam jnānam dhyānan ca. Even if we allow for the chronological error (‘later systems’)prevailing in Deussen's time, the insistence that ŚU is at variance with Sāmkhya and Yoga is striking in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. On p.290 of Sechzig Upanishad's Deussen hi, self says that a whole series of terms and bssic concepts of Sāmkhya philosophy occurs in ŊU; among many others he cites the example ofthe manifold types of relation of purusa ti prakrli.

⁵ The vivarana reads sarvavid yab;sarvavidyah is preferable.In ŚU vi,2 where the combination of some of those adjectives occurs, the structure of the sentence might justifythe reading sarvavid yab, though Hauschild doubts it.

⁶ Robert Ernest Hume,The thirteen principal Upanishads. second edition revised.OUP,1934.

⁷ See St, Petersburg dictionary, s.v.

⁸ The bhāsya(ASS)says:guni = apahatapapmādimān.Śri Upanisad Brahmayogin ef.comments as follows:guni māyātatkāryaguni apahatapādiyunavān vā

⁹ The relationship between Iśvara and his creation is quite clearly explained by the full text of ŚU v, 5, which reeds in extenso:

¹⁰ cf.Yogasūtra, i, 6024: kleśakarmavipāśayair aparāmrstah purusaviśesa īśvarah.

¹¹ Hauschild's ‘er weise alles’und ‘er besitzt alles Wissen’ are just two phrases meaning the same thing.

¹² ef.Sāńkhyapravacanabhāsya (ed.R.Garbe.HOS.II), iii,56: sa hi sarvavit sarvakartāand…sarvavit sarvakarteśvara ādipuruso bhavati.

¹³ cf also Das Gupta A history of Indian philosophy, I,259Google Scholar

¹⁴ ef.ŚU iv,11, yo yonim yonim adhitisthats and ŚU v, 2, yo yonim yonim adhitisthaly eko viāni rūpāni yonīś ca sarvāh.One of the alternatives given in the bhāsya is sarvasyāsarvasya ca yonib.Cf.also E.H.Johnston, Early Sāmkhya,56 and 84.

¹⁵ cf. Gaudapāda's commentart to he suggests jńah purusah.In Mbh., XII, 19680(of.Johnston, op.cit.)ksetrajńa is descrubed as that which is antarātmā and is trigunavyayiriktah purusah kalpitah. There is however, no contradiction in the description of the ksetrajńa as gunaih samyukta.The samyoga is that connexion which permits the purusa to be reflected in the buddhi, The possibility of such a samyoga is, of course, denied by the advaitins.

¹⁶ In spite of the bhāsya, pradhāna is to be understood here as vyaktam pradhānam(cf.Ś i,10:ksaram pradhānam…).

¹⁷ The alternative reading kālakāla for kā;alāra (u.the Tyāgiśānanda ed.) referred to by some commentators is unlikely.

¹⁸ cf.Śvi,3 and 4.

¹⁹ Hauschild's translation of this last phrase is not convincing

²⁰ ef.Hauschild, op.cit., p.37 and n.2.

²¹ Hauschild's translation: ‘Man kennt keine andere Ursache fur die Herrschaft (!!)’

²² ef.for instance ŚU vi,18.