On Anadyamano Yad Anannam Atti Chandogya Upnisad

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "On ‘Anadyamano yad anannam atti'" by M. A. Mahendale, focusing on its analysis of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad:

The article by M. A. Mahendale delves into a specific verse, Chāndogya Upaniṣad 4.3.7, which contains the phrase "anadyamano yad anannam atti" (He who, while not being eaten himself, eats what is not food). The author's primary focus is to understand the origin and potential meaning of this phrase, particularly in relation to a parallel passage in the Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmana (JUB) 3.1-2.

Key Points:

• Comparison with Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmana: Mahendale begins by referencing the extensive work of H. Lüders on the Saṁvargavidyā (the doctrine of consumption) in both the Chāndogya Upaniṣad and the Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmana. Lüders concluded that the Chāndogya Upanishadic teaching is later than the Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa version and likely directly based on it.
• The Crucial Difference: "Adantam" vs. "Anannam": The central puzzle that Mahendale addresses, building on Lüders' work, is the difference in terminology.
  • In the Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmana, the text states "anadyamāno yad adantam atti". Here, "adantam" is explained as referring to "the one that eats" or "the eater," which, in the context of the Brāhmaṇa, is identified as Prāna (individual breath). The verse describes Vāta (wind) as the entity that, while not being eaten, eats Prāna (the eater). This is interpreted as Vāta consuming the individual breath of a person after death.
  • In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, the phrase changes to "anadyamano yad anannam atti". Here, "anannam" is translated as "what is not food." This creates a semantic shift, and Lüders found it difficult to explain the reason for this change from "adantam" to "anannam."
• Mahendale's Proposed Solution: Mahendale proposes a solution to Lüders' puzzle, suggesting that the Chāndogya Upaniṣadic verse was not directly based on the surviving version of the Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmana but on a lost version.
  • He hypothesizes that in this lost version of the Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmana, Prāna was not indirectly referred to as "adantam" (the eater) but directly as "anantam" (one that breathes).
  • The last quarter of the stanza in this hypothetical lost version would have read: "anadyamano yad anantam atti" (He who, while not being eaten himself, eats the one that breathes).
  • Mahendale believes that the Chāndogya Upaniṣad verse was then derived from this version. The word "anantam" in this lost text was subsequently changed to "anannam" in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad.
  • He argues that this change was not a phonetic evolution (like nt > nn) but most likely a copyist's error within the manuscript tradition. The change of "nt" to "nn" is considered quite plausible in Devanagari script.

In essence, Mahendale's article provides a philological explanation for a textual variation between two ancient Indian scriptures, attributing the difference to a probable scribe's error stemming from a lost intermediate text where Prāna was referred to as "anantam" instead of "adantam." This analysis contributes to understanding the transmission and evolution of early Vedic and Upanishadic thought.