Prachin Upnishadona Pratishthit Prakashano Par Prakash

The provided Gujarati text is an article titled "Prachin Upnishadona Pratishthit Prakashano Par Prakash" (Light on the Reputable Publications of Ancient Upanishads) by Bansidhar Bhatt, published in "Samipya" in April-September 2003. The article critically examines various published editions of the Upanishads, highlighting a significant issue with the methodology and authenticity of many of them.

Here's a comprehensive summary of the key points:

1. The Problem of Upanishad Publications:

• Lack of Critical Editions: The author laments that despite the importance of ancient Upanishads for Indian philosophy and culture, there is a notable absence of any truly "critical" or scholarly editions based on extensive manuscript research.
• Reliance on Non-Critical Editions: Most available editions of Upanishads and their commentaries are based on older, non-critical published versions or uncritical commentaries.
• Creating an Illusion of Scholarship: Many scholars, particularly in the West, have published Upanishad editions claiming to be "critical" or based on philological analysis (etymology, textual reconstruction), often without adequately consulting or collating available manuscripts. This creates a misleading impression that these editions are based on original textual research.
• Misleading Citations: These scholars often support their arguments with "original" (direct from the text) or "secondary" (borrowed from other scholars' research) references, blurring the lines and sometimes leading to the propagation of errors. The article emphasizes the importance of direct and verifiable citations.

2. The Process of Manuscript Publication:

The article outlines the essential steps for a proper critical edition based on manuscripts:

• Compilation of Manuscripts: Gathering as many available manuscripts of the target text as possible.
• Collation and Examination: Comparing and verifying the content and readings from these manuscripts.
• Selection of a Base Manuscript (Vulgate): Choosing a primary manuscript that is ancient or commonly used and complete.
• Documenting Variants: Noting and explaining all variations found in other manuscripts in footnotes.
• Strict Adherence to Manuscript Readings: Crucially, the article stresses that editors should not alter any readings from the chosen base manuscript, even if they appear grammatically incorrect, linguistically awkward, or metrically flawed. The principle of lectio difficilior potior (the more difficult reading is stronger) is highlighted; even if a simpler reading is available in another manuscript, the more complex or seemingly flawed reading from the base manuscript should be retained and explained in footnotes.

3. Challenges and Limitations in Textual Criticism:

• Manuscript Imperfections: Manuscripts can contain errors due to scribal negligence, intentional alterations, or variations in orthography. It's often difficult to definitively identify the original text.
• Commentaries (Bhashyas): While commentaries are valuable, their primary aim is often to support a particular philosophical viewpoint rather than purely preserving the original text. Commentators may sometimes interpret or adapt the text to fit their doctrines.
• Loss of Oral Tradition: The long gap between the original composition and the oldest available manuscripts means that oral traditions and their nuances might be lost, making accurate interpretation difficult.

4. Historical Outline of "Textual Massacres" (Grammatical and Metrical Alterations):

The article details how various scholars, starting from the late 19th century, have often manipulated the original Upanishadic texts under the guise of critical editing:

• 19th Century: Scholars like Otto Böhtlingk are criticized for their editions of the Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads. Böhtlingk is accused of textual reconstruction based on philology rather than manuscript collation, altering readings, and creating a misleading impression of critical scholarship.
• Early 20th Century: This trend continued with scholars like Hertel (Mundaka) and Hübschmann (Svetasvatara). The article emphasizes that philological reasoning for textual variations is valid for understanding the text but should not be the basis for altering the published text itself, as it creates confusion about the manuscript basis of the edition.
• Late 20th Century: The practice of producing non-critical editions continued. Examples include the Limaye-Vadekar edition of 18 Upanishads, which relied on previously published editions rather than manuscripts, and the Faige edition of Kaushitaki Upanishad, which used only one manuscript but drew variant readings from printed editions. Even scholars like Maue and Perez Coffie are critiqued for insufficient manuscript reliance for their editions of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.
• Metrical Irregularities (Chhanda-Bhanga): The author discusses the issue of metrical flaws in Vedic and Upanishadic verses. He criticizes scholars who try to "regularize" these verses by altering readings, often without realizing that ancient scribes and commentators themselves did not attempt such corrections, suggesting these might be intentional metrical variations or indicative of the evolving nature of Vedic meters. The article proposes considering Prakrit pronunciations to regularize some meters, as suggested by Alsdorf.
• Un-Paninian Readings (Apāṇinīya): The article strongly defends the retention of readings that appear ungrammatical according to Pāṇini. It highlights that many such readings might reflect the colloquial language (lokabhāṣā) of the Upanishadic period, or Prakrit influences, and that scholars like Adi Shankaracharya and scribes were often faithful to these readings, even noting their potential irregularity without altering them. The danger of "correcting" these to fit modern grammatical norms is that it leads to the loss of valuable linguistic data.

5. The "Illusion of Upanishad Publications" (Upaniṣad-Prakashano ni Māyājāḷ):

This phrase encapsulates the central argument: many scholars have created an illusion of rigorous critical scholarship for their Upanishad editions, when in reality, they have often failed to adhere to the fundamental principles of manuscript-based textual criticism.

6. Key Principles for Publishers:

The article concludes with a strong emphasis on the responsibility of publishers and editors:

• Faithfulness to Manuscripts: Publishers must be completely faithful to the manuscripts, preserving all readings, even difficult or seemingly incorrect ones, just as scribes and commentators were historically.
• Preservation of Oral Tradition: This faithfulness honors the oral and scribal traditions that have transmitted the texts.
• Scribal Remarks: Publishers should pay attention to the concluding remarks of scribes in manuscripts, which often express their diligence and their lack of responsibility for textual errors, urging careful preservation.
• Implications for Scholarship: Editions that deviate from manuscript principles are not reliable bases for further research and can propagate errors.

In essence, the article is a stern critique of the prevalent practices in publishing ancient Indian texts, advocating for a return to rigorous, manuscript-centric textual scholarship and warning against the misrepresentation of "critical" editions when they are, in fact, based on speculative reconstruction or uncritical assumptions.