Each in its proper place: Śaṅkara’s approach to diversity in Upaniṣadic insight texts

Abstract

Scholars dedicated to the careful study of the Upani.sads ~ have continually pointed out the diversity of the views presented in them. As Robert Hume puts it: 'Their inner structure reveals that they are heterogeneous in their material and compound in their composition' (1993: 7). This is particularly true, he continues, of the two largest Upani.sads, the Chandogya and B.rhadaran.yaka: 'Disconnected explanations of the sacrificial ritual, legends, dialogues, etymologizings .... sayings, philosophical disquisitions, and so forth are, in the main, merely mechanically juxtaposed' (Hume 1993: 7). Although one might argue with him about the arbitrariness of such juxtapositions, one would have to agree that the various views expressed cannot easily be harmonized with one another. On the one hand, one finds in these larger Upani.sads sections with completely different concerns, such as the effective use of mantras for copulation (B.rhadaran.yaka Upani.sad 6.4) placed side by side with exhortations to attainment 'the great, birthless self (a-ja atman)' (4.22). On the other hand, different portions may describe the same topic in entirely different ways, such as Brahman as the person-shaped being (purus.a) seen in the eye (Chandogya Upanis.ad 4.15.1) versus Brahman as the self (atman) within the heart (3.14).-" Thus, few historical critical scholars would agree with the idea that Upani.sads, such as the Chandogya and B.rhadaran.yaka, are the product of a single philosophical or theological perspective. in apparent contrast to this, the third satra of B~daraya0.a's Brahma Satras (1.1.3), 3 which sets the standard for all later Vedintic systematization of the Upani.sads, states that the ultimate reality and creative force, known as brahman,