1

Jahrgang 2004 3. Marta Font AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN UND DER LITERATUR
1. Jan Schroder Geschichtsschreibung des 13. Jahrhun­
,,Gesetz" und ..Naturgesetz" in der dets an der Grenze zweier Kulturen.
Abhandlungen der
frihen Neuzeit Das Kinigreich Ungarn und das
35 S . , € 1 0,- Fiirstentum Halitsch-Wolhynien Geistes- und sozialwissenschatlichen Klasse
48 s. mit 15 Abb. , € 1 1 ,-
Jahrgang 2010 • Nr. 4
2. Heinz Duchhardt
,, ... weil (. . .) Stein die Sonne war, 4. Jurgen Hanneder
um welche all die anderen kreisten." Der ,,Schwetgleiche Raum". Zur
Das Stein-Bild im Wandel der Zeiten Klturgeschichte des indischen Stahls
26 S . , € 8,- 45 S., € 9,-

3. Helmut Hesse/J.-Matthias Graf von der 5. Zusammen mit Johannes Fournier und Michael
Schulenburg (Hrsg.) Trauth herausgegeben von Ralf Plate und
Knappheit der Gesundheit aus Andrea Rapp
Knappheit der Mittel im Gesundheits­ Lexikographie und Grammatik des
wesen. Zukunftsfragen der Gesell­ Mittelhochdeutschen. Beitr.ge des
schaft.Vortr.ge des 3. Symposions intemationalen Kolloiums an der
vom 13. Febuar 2004
87 S., € 17,-
Universit.t Trier,
206 S . , € 28,-
19. und 20. Juli 2001
Walter Slaje
4. Ulrich Dierse (Hrsg.) 6_ Gyburg Radke
Joachim Ritter zum Gedenken Sappho Fragment 31 (P). Ans.tze "Neti neti"
1 8 5 S . , € 26,- einer neuen Lyriktheorie
66 S., € 15,-
5. Jurgen Wolf
On the meaning of an Upani�adic citation of some renown
Die Modeme erfindet sich ihr
in Hindu texts and Western minds
Mittelalter - oder wie aus der ,mittelal­ Jahrgang 2006
terlichen Erdkugel' eine ,neuzeitliche 1. Michael Muller-Wille
Erdscheibe'urde Slawenmission in Mitteleuropa
41 S . , € 1 0,- (vergriffen) 29 s. mit 8 bb., € 8,-

2. Hermann Lange
Jahrgang 2005 Die Universit.ten des Mittelalters und
1. Carl Werner Muller das Rimische Recht
Wilamowitz und Ferdinand Dmler_ 19 S., € 7,�
Eine schlimme Geschichte
40 S . , € 9,- 3. Enst Heitsch
Altes und Neues zur Ilias. berlegun­
2. Jan Schroder gen zur Genese des Werkes
Verzichtet unser Rechtssystem auf 34 S., € 8,-
Gerechtigkeit? Zur Entstehung und
Bew.ltigung des Gerechtigkeitspro­
blems im neuzeitlichen Recht_ Eine
Auseinandersetzung mit Paolo Prodi
31 S., € 8,-

AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN UNO DER LITERATUR • MAINZ

FRANZ STEINER VERLAG • STUTTGART
Eingereicht in der Plenarsitzung am 7. November 2009,
zum Druck genehmigt m selben Tag, ausgegeben m 6. ·September 2010.
Oveiew

1 Translational history of neti neti .............................................................. 5

1.1 Bakground.................................................................................................. 5
1 .2 Exaltation..................................................................................................... 7
1 .3 Sankara ········································································································· 10
1 .4 Modem Philology....................................................................................... 13
1.4.1 neti neti: a pair of duplicate negative expressions....................... 13
1 .4.1.1 Construing in line withSankara........................................ 13
1 .4.1.2 Construing independently.................................................. 14
1.4.1.3 Amalgamations.................................................................... 16
1.4.2 neti neti as a syntagm with a positive meaning........................... 17
1 .4.2.1 Alred Hillebrandt............................................................... 17
1 .4.2.2 Karl Friedrih Geidner........................................................ 18

2 The neti neti passages in the BAU ............................................................ 19

2.1 n artificialneti neti construction............................................................ 19

2.2 Syntax and govement of the syntagm na iti na iti:
a positive expression ............. ............................. ....................... ................. 21
2.3 A contemporary exposition in theMadhuka.ia . ...... ........................... 22

Bibliograische Inormation der Deutschen Nationalbibliothck

2.3.1 adesa .. ........... ...... .. ........... .................................................................... 23
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschcn Nationalbibliogrie; 2.3.1.1 One-wordadesas .................................................................. 24
detailliertc bibliograische Daten sind im Internet iber <http://dnb.d-nb.de> abrubar. 2.3.1.2 Sentenceadesas ......................... ............................................ 25
ISBN: 978-3-515-09799-4 2.3.1.2.l Predicative nouns....................................................... 25
2.3.1.2.2 Verbal predicates........................................................ 25
2.3.1.3 Methodicaladesas '
········································ ························ 27
2.3.1.4 Determination of neti neti as sentenceidesa ........... ......... 28

© 2010 by Akademic der Wissenschaten und der Literatur, Mainz

2.3.2 Parsing . ..................... ...................... .............. ..................................... 28
Alie Rechte einschlieBlich des Rechts zur Vervielfaltigung, zur Einspeisung in elektronische 2.3.2.1 Construinghe antecedents................................................ 31
Systeme sowie der Ubersetzung vorbehalten. Jede Vewertung auBerhalb der engen Grenzen 2.3.3 Naming and essence ........................................................................ 33
des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne ausdrickliche Genehmigung der kademie und des Verlages
2.4 neti neti in the Yaj.avalkyak.ia ....................... ..................................... 33
unzulassig und strafbar.

Druck: RDW Druckservice GmbH, Alzey 2.4.1 neti neti as a positive conceptual substitute for 'atman' ............. 4
Gedruckt auf saurereiem, chlorrei gebleichtem Papier 2.4.2 neti neti compared to 'tat tvam asi' ... .................... ...... ............ ..... .. 36
Printed in Germany
4 lnhalt
2.4.3 neti neti in context ················· ·················································· ·········
2.4.3.1 The syntax ofsd e$d . . ... . ...... ... . . . .... . . . ...... .... . . . ... .... ..... .
2.4.3.2 The phrasing sd e$d nd fti nd fti atma in context . .. ............
2.4.3.2.l Translation proposal . ....... ... .. ... . . ... ... . . ....... . . . .. . ....
2.4.3.3 The concluding part . .... . . . . . . .... . ... . .... . ······· ·····················
2.4.3.4 One neti neti paragraph translated in context . .. ... ············
2.4.4 In quest of parallels .. ... .. ..... . ..... . . . .. ..... .. ... .. . .. . .. .. ...... . ·······················
3 Summay ........................................................................................................
Bibliography .......... .......... ... . . . . . . .... . . .. .. . . . . .... . . ····· ··· ······················· ···· ········
36
36
Among other things, familiarity breeds acceptance.
40
Joel Brereton
41
41
42
43
1 Translational history of neti neti1
4
Post-Vedic exegeses have a significant part in moden standard translations
46 of neti neti in he Brhadara.yaka Upani�ad (BAU). The late-medieval Indian
narrative of a paramount importance of Sankara for the understanding of the
Upani�ads, and the latter's construction of one 'philosophy' underlying them,
is widely taken at its face value still today. Earlier, the trusting reception of such
anahronistic viewpoints had conributed to Deussen's idealistic interpretation
of Upani�adic thought and to an adoption of the Indian transiguration of se­
lected Upani�adic phrases up to the exaltation of neti neti. In what follows, this
background will be briefly reviewedirst.
1.1 Background
There is no need to emphasize that Sankara can hardly be accepted as a relia­
ble guide for a historically accurate interpretation of the Vedic Upani�ads. As
everybody knows, the Vedic Upani�ads predate Sankara (7h/8h century)2 by
more than 1000 years. Our present knowledge of the fundamental diference
between multi-layered thought as preserved in the Upani�ads in original diver­
sity and of Sankara's consruct of one unifying concept that would nderliell
of them results from continuous lndological researh into the intellectual histo­
ry of India. Earlier ranslaions, however, suh as, e.g., Paul Deussen's German
1 Lectures on the gist of this treatise were given under the title "Neti neti - Not his?
Not that? Not so? No, no?" at the Universities of Tokyo and Kyoto in December
2008. I m grateful to Professor Minoru Hara for his obliging invitaion, brought
to ruiion by funds provided by the Toyo Bunko, and to my local hosts, Professors
Hiroshi Marui (Tokyo) and Yuko Yokohi (Kyoto). For their criicism of, and astute
comments on, earlier versions of the present exposiion I am paricularly indebted to
Harry Falk (Berlin), Arlo Griiths Oakarta), Minou Hara (Tokyo), Heinrih Heih
{Wlrzburg), Stephanie W. Jamison (Los Angeles), Roland Steiner (Halle), Wener
Knobl (Kyoto), and one anonymous reader for the JAOS.
2 Between 756 and 772 (Harimoto 2006); 670-700 (Slaje 2007: 116, n. 1).
6 Walter Slaje
"Sechzig Upani$ad' s des Veda" (11897, 31921), were in their time consciously
made in the spirit of, and in dependency on, Sankara' s philosophical setting.
Another reasonfor Deussen' s anah ronistic interpretation was his unreserved
admiration of the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. He followed
in the later' s footsteps also in ng highly of 'the philosophy' (singular) of
the Upani$ads (plural). Sh openhauer' s well-known statement of 1851 that
reading the Upani$ads "had been the solace of my life and will be the solace
of my death", had its starting-point in the Latin translation of the Upani$ads
made by Anquetil Duperron (Oupnekhat, 1801-1802), with which Schopen­
hauer had become acquainted.3 Duperron' s translation was prepared from a
Persian rendering of ifty Upani$ads (Sirr-i akbar) by the Mogul prince Dara
Sukoh, completed by the same within a time span of only six months on July
9, 1657 (AD) in Delhi.HisPersian 'translation' relied on the help of an oral ex­
position given in a ven acular byBenaresPi.its andSapnyasins smm oned
to Dara' s Delhi palace.It was not a word-for-word translation made directly
rom the Sanskrit original.Almost 1000 years after Sankara, and accordingly
more than 2000 years after the composition of the main body of Upani$ads,
thePi.its explained them to Dara in keeping with their own understanding,
i.e., in the spirit of, and in accordance wih , Sankara' s exposition.4 At that time,
Sankara' s interpretation had gained a widespread, almost undisputed accep­
tance in Advaita-Vedanta circles, whih followed his exposition. The 'scrip­
ture' that arousedSchopehauer' s enthusiasm in the19h century was therefo­
re not only imbued withSankara' s ideas, but moreover represented the result
of a multiple translational and exegetical refraction, analysed as follows:
1) The multi-layeredVedic Upani$ads.
2) The Upani$ads in Sankara' s standardized perspective.
3) Their oral rendering by Benares Pai.is in line with Sankara' s exposi­
tion in a 17h century ven acular.
4) Dara Sukoh' s Persian translation prepared with the help of these
Pa..its.
5) Anquetil Duperron' s Latin translation produced from Dara Sukoh' s
Persian translation.
6) Its airmative reception by Sh openhauer, whih exercised a lasting
influence on the European middle-class and onIndologists.
3 Parerga und Paralipomena II§ 184, p. also Halbfass 1988: 106f.
4 Dara Sukoh, who mentions Sankara's name explicitly in his translation, used the
'narrative translation mehod' by employing Patlits to help translate a Sanskrit
work into Persian. Cp. Goebel-GroS 1962: 21-33; 165.
Neti neti 7
Deussen had tun ed full circle when he drew upon Sankara' sSanskrit exeges­
es for his ranslation of the Upani$ads andhereby enthusiastically recognized
that their teachings corresponded in fact with the Persian Oupnekhat. Neit­
her was he aware of the interpretational ifluence exercised by Dara Sukoh' s
Pai.its on he Persian translation nor that he and the Pai.its were depen­
ding on a common source of inspiration, whih was Sankara. Paul Deussen
shared Sh openhauer' s regard for the Persian Oupnekhat5 to suh a degree
that he adopted the 50 Upani$ads from the Persian collection and added ano­
ther ten to them for his translation rom the Sanskrit. This enlarged collection
came to be known as he famous "Sixty". By determining the conception of
'Upani$adic philosophy' , Deussen' s translation and his numerous publica­
tions had an epoch-making impact on not only the German-speaking middle­
class. There was, however, no awareness that what was designated 'idealistic
Upani$adic thought' was in fact based on the idiosyncratic interpretation of
one inluential medieval Indian commentator as handed down and further
developed by his followers (§ 1.3). Paul Deussen was well read in Sankara' s
Brahmas1tra-Bh.$ya, which he had translated into German n its entirety ten
years (1887) before his Sixty Upani$ads translation (1897). Deussen translated
he Upani$adic neti neti passage fully in line with the explanation thereof gi­
ven by Sankara ins Brahmasutra-Bh.$ya.
1.2 Exaltation
The above applies, in my opinion, also to one standard interpretation of the
neti neti phrase: sd e?d neti nety atma.6 Today, scholars seem to agree on its being
"very famous."7 We are never told, however, what exactly itsfame would de­
rivefrom, nor indeed whih authority would have considered it to be that fa-
5 Schopenhauer "greeted the subsequent direct translaions by H. Th. Colebrooke
and H. E. R0er, and especially those of Rammohan Roy, with suspiion and dis­
missal." (Halbfass 1988: 106).
6 n quo �g, accents are used when reference is made to the Madhyandina recension
of the BAU. n the controversial marking and nature of the Satapahabrahmata
accentuation, p. Caland 1998: 7-11; Homann 1975: 132f; Maue 1976: XI-LX;
Cardona 1993.
7 "[...] cette fameuse formule [ . . )" (Oltramare 1906: ). "[...]words which were ob­
.
viously considered as the most important expressions of the profoundest mystery
in one of the Up;ads [...]" (Oldenberg 1915/1991: 40). "Die bermte Formel
,,neti, neti" [. ..]". (StrauS 1928: 137. [= l. r.: 288]). "[...] mehrahwiederholen,
berihmten Saz [ . .]" (Thieme 1968: 720, n. 1). "The expression neti neti is, to the
present day, one of the favorite upaniiadic citaions in Hindu religious philoso­
phy." (Hok 207: 108).
8 Walter Slje
mous. he phrase is not even rekoned among the tradiional four mahavayas. 8
The fact of its being the subject of interpretation in Vedanta commentaries on
the BAU and on the Brahmasutra9 is not very surprising. However, in no way
would this fact alone sufice for the claim for fame. Explaining neti neti in those
texts was quite natural. he commentators themselves do not seem to assign
any special importance to the phrase.
Except for Ar$eyop�ad 9 (§ 2.4.1), neti neti occurs within the so-called
Vedic Upani$ads10 only in the BAU: once in the Madhuk.ia (§ 2.3), three (K:
four) times in the Yajtavalkyak.ia (§ 2.4). Apart from commentaries, neti
neti is occasionally also found quoted in post-Vedic texts suh as Gauiapada's
Agamasasra, 11 a work traditionally considered an exposiion of the Matlukya
Upani$ad and thus somehow linked to the Upani$adic body of texts. The mea­
nings assined to the phrase in post-Vedic reatises stand in need of a separate,
comparative investigaion. 12 The actual occurrence of the phrase is recognizab­
ly limited to a rather small body of Vedantic texts and heir commentaries. A
few works outside he Vedanta traditions proper refer to it in passing. Among
them, the Sabarabha$ya quotes it as 'instructional formulation' (brahma1a) in
the Vrttikaragrantha.13 The Mok$opaya (/ Yogavasi$tha), too, makes allusions
to neti neti (V V 87, 16b; VI 31, lOa; VII 161, 45a) and in doing so mentions
explicitly the BAU (YV V 71, 57).14 Abhinavagupta refers to the phrase in his
8 ahaz brahmasi (BAU I 4, l O(K)); tat tvam asi (ChU VI 8, 7-16); prajnanaz brahma (AiU
III, 3); ayam ltml brahma (MU 2). satyaz jitnam anantaz brahma (U I, 1) is oc­
casionally also enumerated among he mahtvtyas.
9 Brahmas.ra commentators consider S.ras II2, 2 (prakrtaittvattvaz hi prati?edhati.
tato braviti ea bhuyaz) and 23 (tad avyaktam tha) to be related to the neti neti phrase.
10 Among the post-Vedic Upani?ads, I am aware of two occurrences: Varahopani?ad
I 68 (neti netrti rupatvtd asariro bhavaty ayam) and Advayatarakopani?ad (neti netrti
vihtya yad ava5i$yate sad advayaz brahma . . ., p. 34, 9f).
11 sa eja neti netrti vyhyataz nihnute yataz I savam agrthyabhtvena hetuntjaz pra45ate
11 AS III 26 II.
12 herefore, neti neti interpretations of various Brahmasura commentators such as
Bhaskara, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Madhva and others, let alone a comprehensive
comparison of her and of the approahes of non-Vedanta authors, lie outside e
scope of the present paper and cannot be dealt with here.
13 SBh(F) S8,14; p. Slaje 2007: 142f; 149.
14 I am grateful to Roland Steiner for having drawn my atenion to Slaje 1994a: 213,
n. S4, where these passages have been recorded. he Mok?opaya references are
apparently to be seen in relaionship wih the Agama§asra (ee above, n. 1 1).
Given the closeness of the two texts also in other regards (Slaje 1994a: 93, n. 2;
Slaje 1994b), suh references are not surprising at all. At any rate, he Mok?opaya
represents nothing more than another strand of a post-Vedic interpretation of this
Neti neti 9
Tantraloka, assigning he meaning of objectless consciousness to it. 15 Neti neti
occurs three imes in the Bhagavatapur.a (II2, 18; II7, 23; l 6, 32), and the
Sankhyasutra mentions it, too (SS 75). The possibility that Maqceta referred to
the phrase in his Vaiarhavaiastotra will be discussed below (§ 2.4.4).
Even though one must assume many more occurrences could be traced, the
distribution of he neti neti quotes among diferent categories of texts would
phrase. For the sake of convenience and qik reference, the relevant passages are
edited provisionally rom ms 51 and the vulgate edition Nd (on the sigla see Slaje
1994a and Hanneder 2006) in their immediate contexts:
V V 71, S6-S8 = 51 p. Sll, ll. Sf: jattjae,adrsor madhye yat tattvaz piramatmiam
I tad etad va ntnttvaz ntnlsazjiabhir agatam II S6 II vaz svarupaz jivasya
brhadiraJyakidi$u I bahudht bahuju proktaz vedinte$u kiltnagha II S7 II anyais
tv etasu sazjnasu kuvialpakutirkiaiz I mohtya evalaz mu,hair vyartham arthtz
praalpitlz II S8 II
S6a madhye S1] madhyaz Nd S6d agatam S 1] ltatam Nd S8a anyais S1] aj.ais Nd S8d
:t51] asthlz Nd
V V 87, 16 = 51 p. S37, ll. 1f (The viewpoint adopted here is VItahavya 's attainment
of nirviiza by passing hrough the states of pasyantl°, SU$Upta0 and tuyarupapada.
hese states lnk this passage to cognate ideas in the Ma..kya-Upani?ad and the
Agamasastra): aeinmayaz cinmayaz ea nei neti yad ucyate I tat tataz sazbabhuvtsau
[cl. VItahav ya, W.S.] madgiram apy agoearaz 1 1 16 1 1
16c tat tatat S ]1 tatas tat Nd 16d madgiram S 1] yad giram Nd
V VI 31, 10 = 51 p. 602, 1. Sf (neti occurs within a long series of successive nega­
tions (S-12)): nei neti na eaivaramazea, le rajanr yatht I na vastuttvastute ea tujlreju
yatho?izata 1 1 10 II
lOd tu.re?u S 1] tullre tu Nd
V II 161, 43-4S = 51 p. 9S2, 11. 14f (Context: the dreaming and waking states sha­
re the same degree of reality (VII 161, 24f). Particularly he idea expressed in V
II 161, 26cd (vartamantnubhavaslmyat tulyaitayor (Nd: tulye tayor) dvyoz) exhi­
bits parallels with Gau.apada's argument (AS I 2). The statement V VII 161, 39
(destd deSintaraprlptau yan madhye sazvido vapuz I taj jtgratsvapnadrsyasya rupam
ity eva niseayaz, on a parallel of 39ab [-MU II 17, 14ab], p. Haneder 206: 87)
corresponds to the one above (V V 71, S6a) introducing he BAU reference S7ab):
drajfl ya eva tad drsyaz tad vai vedanam eaam 1 1 43cd 1 1 tad brahma hamayaz vddhi
dvaitam advaitam eva ea I sarga va paraz brahma dvaitam advaitam eva sat II 44 II neti
nei vinirJiya savaz tan neti nety api I paseat tyaktvi eia45az ... II 4S II
43c dra;;ta ya eva tad drsyat 51] dr?tl ya eva drsyaz tad Nd 43d tad vai vedanam
S 1] dvaitavedanam Nd 44a khamayat viddhi S 1] haz vidur dvaitam Nd 44b dvaitam
advaitam S1] advaitidvaitam Nd
4Sb savat tan neti nety api S1] savato 'bhibhavaty api Nd 45c cidakasat S ]1 eiSe
Nd.
lS tad eva sunyarupatvaz sazvidaz parigiyate I neti neti vimarsena yoginiz ii part
dast II 6.10 II Jayaratha comments on it in the following manner: seyaz [...]
bhlvabhtvavi?ayena neti neti parlmarsadvayena madhyamapadaveseQiilintz yogintz
para sunyttisunyarupt dasa visrantisthtnam ity arthaz. (TA, p. 1 97, 13-198, 2).
10 Walter Slaje
predictably remain the same. All in all, the phrase is a Vedanta topic. There is
some likelihood that this very fact alone will have lead many a scholar to over­
estimate its importance. I have a strong suspicion that, actually, it was rather
the obscurity of the phrasing, whih caused the attribuion of "fame". To insist
on the celebrity of a statement may help to cover up he fact that its actual
meaning is anything but clear. It is of course possible hat someone may in­
deed have recognized a certain dignity in the solemn intonation of neti neti.
The two "no-s" or "not-s" (ni) to be sensed in the phrase nd - fti, d -fti may
sound like a weighty prohibition to the ears of some, reminiscent of the Ten
Commandments ("thou shalt not") or of certain statements of occidental my-
stics:
"Can one speak here more boldly, more intensely of the untro�den path,
the path not to be entered, into whih the thought ventures? It_1s also the
language of the Christian mysticism at its highes� zenith. - e "Atman that
is called No, no!" - is the god of whom Scotus Enugena [9 century, W.S.]
says "Deus proper excellentiam non immerito Nihil vocatur". And Ange­
lus Silesius [17h century, W.S.], "God is sheer nothingness." Or is here even
the slightest diference felt?"16
"[...] that universality, whih Ekhart [13h/14h century, W.S.] calls, "Nei­ •
ther this nor that", "nothing'', and Yajiavalkya calls the "No, no"."17
Yet it is diicult to tell what exactly may have made Westen scholars admire
s statement to such a degree.
1.3 Sankara
Notwithstanding the philological groundwork of clear-headed sholars not
carried away by any inappropriate enhusiasm for Sra, and despite the
existence of historico-philological approahes to the Upani�ds surpassing
Deussen's estimable earlier ahievements,18 he indirect influence of Sankara
still makes itself felt today, albeit below the surface, at times to an almost un­
recognisable degree. Assigning 'historical signiicance' to Sankara can be ju­
stiied only under the condition of a restricion to the period from about the
late 14h century to modem times. Sankara's ennoblement as "leading autho­
rity" on Upani�adic matters happened at irst in he local poliical context of
the Vijayanagara Empire hrough the literary activities of Vidyariya (and
16 Oldenberg 1915/1991: 40.
17 Oldenberg 1915/1991: 115.
18 Today, heir imporance lies n he fact that Deussen's trnslation mirrors Saara's
exposition of the BAU.
Neti neti 11
Sayaia) under king Harihara II. (r.
137-14) in continuation of those begun
by Madhava under king Bukka (r. 1356-137). s was done with a view to re­
establishing and strengthening the smarta and srauta dharma-s of the Hindus
against a growing Muslim inluence.19 Judging rom the bulk of philosophical
texts of some seven centuries preceding this time, Sankara cannot have played
but a very modest role and was virtually neglected by all iluential philoso­
phers of raditions outside Vedanta proper. Inside Vedanta, medieval authors
not only accused m of fancied interpretations (as, e.g., Bhaskara), but also
criicised m to the extent that - evolving from suh disputes - exegetical tra­
ditions took shape (e.g., Ramanuja's Visi�tadvaita). It should also be recalled
that Wilhelm Rau has convincingly shown hat despite his performance as
an Upani�adic commentator, Sankara could hardly have received any formal
training in the Vedas, their ancient language and accentuation:
"Fr mih unterliegt es keinem Zweifel, daB Sankara traditionellen Unter­
riht im vedishen Sinne nie genossen hat, daB er die Rezensionen der BAU
nah MSS verglih, die womoglih noh niht einmal akzentuiert waren,
kurz, daB er vielerlei Versionen l�s, wo das Altertum eine Version auswendig
kannte. [...] Als Interpret der BAU sheidet Sankara also fir uns aus: wir
werden ohne n eher zum Verstandnis dieses Textes gelangen als unter
seiner Fihrung."20
n "Sankaras Kennnis der vorklassischen Sprache", Rau stated elsewhere: 21
"[...] den Wortlaut zu glatten waren bereits im 8. Jahrhundert p. Chr. Ge­
waltitigkeiten notig. Oder wie soll man es nennen, wenn (1) Silben falsh
abgetrennt, Ideclinabilia (2) niht verstanden, (3) vewechselt oder (4) er­
ganzt, (5) Pripositionen und (6) Verbformen niht erkannt, (7) Casus eben­
so wie (8) Personen vertauscht werden?"
"[Sankara stand] verdorbenem vorklassishem Sanskrit [.. .] ebenso unsi­
her gegenlber wie leidlih lberlieferter Bramaia-Prosa. Flr Verse fehl­
te m das Or. - Philologen dlrfen sich die Lektlre seiner Komentare
scheken."2
Tung to Sankara's interpretation of the neti neti phrase, in his Brah­
masutrabha�ya he construes iti as topic ("so"), and na as a negative predicate
("not"): na iti ("not so"). He equates the meaning of iti with evam::"so", "thus'',
and quotes he sentence "so indeed the teacher said" as an example of s mea­
ning. In doing so, he disregards the word order, whih requires hat iti takes
19 See Slaje 2010.
20 Rau 1959/61: 295 (117); 299 (121).
21 au 1974: 193.
2 au 1974: 198. his might account or Snkara's sntactically ntenable consuc­
tion of neti neti.
12 Walter Slaje
the first position, as it is correctly observed in the example he quotes referring
to the teaher's immediately preceding speeh (iti ... athayati)3:
itisabdas ciyari sainihitilambana evazsabdasamanavrttib prayujyamano drsyate
'iti ha smopadhyayab athayati 'ity evamadi$U (BSuBh II2, 22; p. 653, 4f).
Despite the word order in he neti phrase being the other way round, he claims
that na iti would come to mean "not so". This negation was- again in Sankara's
view - even used twice and should thus be understood as an emphatic repe­
tition (na iti, na iti).24 Sankara moreover concluded that he true scope of he
repeated negation "not so, not so" must have been the total of effects superim­
posed on brahman:25
tadispadat hrdaz samastaz aryai neti netlti prati$iddham (BSuBh III 2, 22,
p. 656, l).
It would emphatically negate the cosmic plurality ictitiously superimposed on
brahman by using concepts for it, leaving brahman itself, however, untouhed:26
tasmit prapaicam eva brahmazi kalpitari prati$edhati, pariSina?ti brahmeti
nirzayab (BSuBh II2, 22, p. 656, 11£).
As can easily be seen, Sankara is onto his favourite subject of superimposition
(adhyaropita) again.27 t is haracteristic of Sankara to apply this tediously repe­
tiive concept to anything whatever, not even stopping at neti neti.
23 Cp. Thibaut 1904: 167.
24 Cp., e.g., BS.Bh II2, 22: [ ...] dvir netiSabdaprayoglt (p. 653, 9); dvau caita! prati$edhau
[ ...] (p. 656, 6£); [... ] neti netrti vipsa [... ] (p. 656, 8). o also Sankara's BAUBh T 3, 6:
tasmad vrpsarthai neti neti naiiradvayam (p. 294, 19).
5 Cp. hibaut 1904: 169.
26 Cp. Thibaut 1904: 169. Similarly explained also in BAUBh l 3, 6: yasmin na ascd vi5e?o
sti [...] na nirde?turi sayate [ ...] adhyiropitanamarupaarmadvareza brahma nirdisyate
[ ... ] 0sabdaii; yada punab svarupam eva nirdidik?itai bhavati nirastasavopadhivise$Q11,
tada na sakyate enacid api praiireza nirde?tum. [. .) praptanirde5aprati?edhadvareza neti
.
netrti nirdesab. (p. 293, 17-294, ). Consequently, according to Sankara, "neti neti''
funcions as a specification (nirde5a) or brahman, devoid of all properties hrough
negating specifications imposed on it in the posiive.
27 See the BAUBh quote in n. 26 above. n he absence of comparative studies of neti
neti interpretations in at least the major Vedanta ramiicaions, it is problematic to
suggest a unanimous exegesis by speaking of 'the' or one 'radiion' with only
Sankara in mind. The Kevaladvaita tradition starting with Sankara in fact repre­
sents only one exegetical shool among many.
Neti neti 13
1.4 Modem Philology
Deussen rendered Sankara's Brahmasutra interpretaion of neti neti correctly
with
"Es ist niht so, es ist niht so."
he same applies to Thibaut's translaion:
"Not so, not so!"28
Saying, however, hat their translaions of Sankara's Brahmasutra exposition
of the Upani;;adic neti neti are correct does not render them correct also in terms
of the original Upani;;adic meaning of neti neti.29 n any case, Sankara's idea
about the meaning of neti neti has maintained its position in a good number
of ollow-up ranslations. To verify such an assertion, it sufices to cast one's
eyes on some major Upani;;adic translations covering passages containing this
phrase. n closer inspection, a clear translational bifurcation becomes distin­
guishable though sharing as essential similarity that neti neti is analysed as a
pair of duplicate negative expressions.
1.4.1 neti neti: a pair of duplicate negative expressions
1.4.l.1 Consruing in line with Sankara
n 1897, Paul Deussen deviated rom Mlller's (1884) and Bohtlingk's (1889)
earlier "no(t), no(t)" translations (§ 1.4.1.2) by deliberately replacing them with
Sankara's "not so" construction. Some, suh as R. E. Hume, may have accepted
Sankara unintentionally by_ simply following Deussen's model. Others, for
their part, would have copied Hume. n any case, Deussen must be considered
the Westen pioneer of the "not so" translation model by adopting Sankara's
interpretation. The action of translators inluenced by m took iti s negated
by a; iti is varyingly presumed to mean "this" or "hat" or "so":
na iti ="not tis I not that I not so".
Here is a selection of examples from the "not this / not that / not so" party:0
28 Deussen 1887: 533-536. Thibaut 1904: 167-171.
29 n translating the neti niti phrase of BAU I 3, 6, Deussen makes a et reerence
to Sankara's Brahmasutra-Bha?ya (Deussen 1897: 414).
30 Since translators very rarely aknowledged their predecessors in ranslaing iti
neti, the present listing intends to display probable dependencies.
 Walter Slaje
Neti neti 15
14
"[ ... ]the teaching (of Brahman) by No, no!" (Muller 1884)43
"Es ist nicht so! es ist niht so!" (Deussen 11897, 31921)31
"[...]described by No, no!" (Muller 1884)4
"Not thus! not so!" (Hume 1921)32
"Nicht, nicht" (Bohtlingk 1889)45
"It is not this, it is not that" (Hume 1921)33 "Non! non! je le dis" (Oltramare 1906)6
"Not this, nor this" (Dasgupta 1922)34 "No, no !" (Olde nberg 1915)47
"Dieser Atman ist niht so, niht so" (van Gelder 1957)35
"Non! Non!" (Senart 1934)8
"Nicht so, niht so!" (Baumer 1997)6
"Nicht, nicht!" (Ruben 1961)49
"Niht dieses und niht jenes" (Baumer 1997)37 "Not , not." (Edgerton 1965)0
"Not this, not this" (Roebuk 2000)38 "Niht" (Thieme 1966)51
"Not this, not that" (Lindquist 2004)39 "Immer wieder: 'nicht'." (Thieme 1968)52
"Not this, not that" (Brereton 2006)40 "Nein, nein" (Frauwallner 1968 / 1992)53
"Pas ainsi, pas ainsi" (Bronkhorst 2008)41 "No, no!" (Goodall 1996)4
"Not this and not this" (Cohen 2008)42 "Not, not" (Wiz 1998)55
"Not-, not-" (Olivelle 1998)6

1.4.1.2 Construing independently

43 Mlller 1884: 108. I 3, 6(K).
The second group of scholars understood both itis in their unction as mere
4 Mlller 1884: 149. II 9, 26(K) etc.
unquote markers placed directly after na:
45 Bohtlingk 1889: 27. I 3, ll(M) etc.
"No(t)" - "no(t)" (na - iti, na - iti). 46 Oltramare 1906: 7.
47 Oldenberg 1915/1991: 40; 115.
Max Muller (BAU /K) and Oto Bohtlingk (BAU /M) may be considered as
48 enart 1934: V; 30. I 3, 6(K).
pioneers of this translation model, whih was adopted by many. Here is an
- admittedly a bit exhaustive - selection from the ''no(t)" - "no(t)" group in 49 Ruben 1961: 219; 243. III 9, 28(M); V 4, 27(M).
hronological order: 50 Edgerton 1965: 150; 153; 165. II 9, 28(M); V 2, 6(M); V 4, 27(M).
51 hieme 1966: 42. V 4, 27(M).
52 Thieme 1968: 720. II 3, 11. Thieme makes a distinction between he meaning of his
passage and of the following three neti neti paragraphs: "Der Gedanke ist zu un­
31 Deussen 11897, 31921: 414; 454. I 3, 6(K); II 9, 26(K) etc. ter �he�den von dem, der in dem mehrfach wiederholten, beriihmten Saz ausge­
. .
32 Hume 1921: 97. I 3, 6(K). drukt ist [...]:,,Von d1esem Selbst spriht man immer mit 'niht"' (d.h. es ist nur
33 Hume 1921: 125. II 9, 26(K) etc. negaiv zu bestimmen):[...]". (Thieme 1968: 720, n. 1).
4 Dasgupta 1922: 4. 53 Frauwallner 1968: 59 (in the context of SBh 58, 14); "Das ist dieses elbst von dem
'
es heiSt:'Nein, nen'." Frauwallner 1992: 2. V 4, 22(K).
35 van Gelder 1957: 84; 103f; cp. also Oltramare 1906: 7.
4 "From his follows the teahing [smmed up in the words]: 'No, no!' For there is
6 "Die Unterweisung dariiber lautet nun: Niht so, niht so!, denn es gibt nihts Ho­
heres als (die Unterweisung) ,,niht so!"." (Baumer 1997: 7. I 3, 6). nothing higher than this 'No'." Goodall 1996: 63. I 3, 6(K). "his self - [wat can
one say of it but]- 'No, no!'." Goodall 1996: 81; 97; 9. II 9 26 / V 4, 23 / V 5,
37 Baumer 1997: 4. II 9, 26 I V 4, 23 I V 5, 15(K). '
15(K).
- 'not this'
38 "Hence the symboic statement, 'not s not s for there is nothing
, ',
55 . 'his self is (simply described as) 'Not, not'." Wiz 1998: 66. V 4, 27(M). ""li, thus",
3, 6(K). is "not this, not this"."
is the standard way of quoting somehing that has been said. o neti "'not' thus"
- higher than this." Roebuk 00: 39-40. I "The self
(p. 68). II 9, 26 I V 4, 23 I V 5, 15. recalls and epitomizes he state of saing "not", or "no", na. And the;efore, eti netf
39 Lindquist 2004: 207. �uggests he atitude in which [...] is mentally said "[tis is] not [my self]", " [this
0 Brereton 2006: 328. BAU II 9, 28(M) etc. Cp. also 1986: 106. ��]n�t .[part of mel,,:·;."' (p. 91). "[...]more generally, neti neti, "'[this is]not [self]"',
[t�s is]not [self] . (p. 357-358). "Of course, neti, neti is a very broad desinaion
41 "[...] le soi n'est pas tel qu'on se !'imagine: "pas ainsi, pas ainsi" (neti net1), indi­
which probably covers various inner practices and principles at diferent levels."
quant par la l'abime qui separe la realite ultime du monde de notre experience."
(p. 528).
(Bronkhorst 2008: 134).
56 Olivelle 1998: 67. I 3, 6(K) etc.
42 Cohen 2008: 71. BAU II 9, 26(K).
 '

Neti neti 17
16 Walter Slaje

"Not ...", "not ... " (Goto 2005)57 1.4.2 neti neti as a syntagm with a positive meaning
"lnte, inte" (Gansten 2005)8
"Cannot be known" (Bronkhorst 2007)59 Apart from the two widespread translation models established by Sankara/
7)60
'"Not', 'not', i.e. as not deinable in any way." (Hok 200 Deussen and Muller/Bohtlingk respectively, which have in common that they
(1976) also sides with take emphatic negations as their starting point in line with practically all me­
From the paraphrase he uses it appears that Hanefeld
immer in der Vneinung dieval commentators, I am aware of only two altenatives worth considering.
this group: "Das ist dieser Atman, von dem man
heir authors are Alfred Hillebrandt and Karl Friedrich Geldner.
spriht."61

1.4.2.1 Alfred Hillebrandt

1.4.l.3 Amalgamations
ssions of model 1 ("not It was Hillebrandt (1915) in particular, who objected to Sankara's "not his" in­
The following are examples of how the duplicate expre
cal in meaning, or terpretation66 and to Deussen's translational reproduction thereof by ponting
this") and model 2 ("not, not") were considered to be identi
produce hybrid forms by out the syntactically doubtful word order of a construction na iti. Hillebrandt
were subjected to an amalgamation. Efforts made to
l braketng do not add to also criticized Bohtlingk's "not not" translation. He observed that haracteri­
taking iti in two functions at one time through skilfu
sions accordng to the sing the atman in the negative would be nconsistent with its regularly positive
the broad picture of pairs of duplicate negative expres
description in the Upani�ads. It was this - important - observation, which
translations just cited:
aroused Hillebrandt's doubts. He was undoubtedly also on he right track
62
"No, no!; ovvero non cosi, non cosi" (Della Casa 1976) when he pointed to a certain likelihood of etymological wordplay inherent in
"(It is) not (this), not (this)" (Hok 2002)63 the neti phrase. To be sure, the Upani�ads provide abundant examples of pseu­
"Not (this), not (this)" (Hok 2002)64 do-etymological word analyses (nivacana). Hillebrandt's utter discontent­
"Niht [so], niht [so]" (Mihaels 2006)65
ment with the two standard models, which, despite his criticism, are none­
theless current today, made him propose that na should be recognized as an
old airmative particle:
"Man lbersezt das hier eigentlih unlbersezbare neti neti in der ublihen
Weise mit ,,nicht,_nicht"; [ ... ] es liegt ein Wortspiel vor, das an den Dop­
2005: 72. II 9,28(K 26), V pelsinn von na = ,,ja" (fur nai, veraltet) und ,,niht" anknlpt und den
=

57 "[...] atman [wih is described] "not ... ", "not ..."" (Goto deutelustigen Theologen willkomen war."67
2,6(K 4), V 4,27(K 22).
g by 0. vasrom, No­ Na as airmative appears however to be very diicult to accept. Apart from
58 Swedish for "not, not". (Citation communicated in wriin
vember 14, 2008). that, Hillebrandt's second important point was that the Salkara-Deussen ap­
neti phrase as "atman cannot
59 Bronkhorst (2007: 118) refers to the meaning of he neti proah would require he word order iti na, but not na iti as is the case here.68
be known". Cp., howev er, Bronk horst in§ 1.4.1.1 . Consequently, Hillebrandt refrained from translating neti and retained both
60 Hok 2007: 108. BAU D 9, 28(M). na-s:
61 Hanefeld 1976: 41. V 4, 22(K). "lmmer" ("always") is -
possibly in imitation of
to terms with he double use of
Thieme (1968: 720)- obviously an attempt to come 6 "Auf die indishen Erklarungen solcher Formeln, worauf D[eussen] sih beruft,
a. mochte ih ichts geben." (Hillebrandt 1915: 105 = 195).
-Filippi's earlier ranslation
62 Della Casa 1976: 89; 117; 124; 136; 140. Whereas Belloi 67 Hillebrandt 1921: 41, n. 56 (p. 171). With reference to Aitareyabrahma.a 16, 20f yad
()va) as reedited by M. Meli, reads an unamb iguous ly Sankarean "non e cosi, vai devanltt neti tad e$lm om) and Satapathabrahma.a I 4, 1.30 yad vai nety ry om
none cosl" (Belloni-Filippi 202: 4). iti tat), Hillebrandt ventured to equate na wih an airmative om: "Es war aus altr
63 Hok 2002: 280. BAU D 9, 26(K). Zeit eine Bejahungspartikel iberkomen, die nicht mehr gebrauhlich und mit der
Negation gleihlautend geworden war." (Hillebrandt 1915: 106 = 196).
4 Hok 2002: 283. BAU I 3, 6(K).
68 Hillebrandt 1915: 106 = 196.
65 Michaels in Geidner 1928/2006: 118.
18 Walter Slaje Neti neti 19
"Der Hinweis darauf ist: na na". (Hillebrandt 1921)69
To smmarize, at least Hillebrandt and Geldner did not adapt to the main­
As far as I can see, only Johannes H�rtel (1921) even applied Hillebrandt's stream of he two standard translation models on offer at their time.
theory of na as an affirmative particle. His nominalization of the second na (the
'Not') resulted in the following translation:
"Das Ih ist jenes Niht" (Hertel 1921).70 2 The neti neti passages in the BAU

Here is an overview of the neti neti passages in the Madhu- and Yajtavalkya­
1.4.2.2 Karl Friedrih Geldner Kias. Madhukia:
BAU II 3, ll(M) 6(K)
Geldner, for his part, translated differently (1928/2006). Jud�g rom � �� ithdta adesab. neti neti. ni hy etismad fti nety anyit piram isty. itha namadhyam
translation,n however, he must nstinctively have sensed somehing like an iti satyisya satyim iti.
na construction ("not so") govened by the irst na:
Yajtavalkyakla:
"Nicht ist es nicht so [ ... ]." (Geldner 1 928)72
• •
,, BAU III 9, 28(M) 26(K) =IV 2, 6(M) 4(K) =IV 4, 27(M) 22(K) [=IV 5 15(K)]7
"Von diesem Atman kann man nicht sagen: er ist mcht so. (Geldner 1928)3 , 5
si e?i neti nety atmi. igrhyo, ni hf grhyite. isrryo, ni hf Siryite. isailgo, isito, ni
Geldner conceived a double negation, whih is equival�nt to an �firm�tion,74 sajyite, ni vyithate.76
.
and construed it as a predicate. n the first inst-ce, he md1c�tes its �u ?�ct by �
"it" ("es") without further details, in the second instance, by atmin ( er ). 2.1 n artiicial neti neti construction
1) "It is not [the case hat it is] not so."
. ,, n addition to the above passages, Hock has drawn atention to another neti
2) "About this atman one cannot say: he is not so.
neti occurrence in the second Yajtavalkya-Maitreyi dialogue ( B AU(K ) V 5, 3)
never recognised before by sholars. This new passage is central to he thesis
Hok advances in his paper:7

69 "Der Hinweis darauf ist: na na. Es gibt nichts anderes, das �ber die�m iti na stan.: "n the irst telling of the episode, Yajtavalkya responds by simply saying
de."(Hillebrandt 1921: 41) BU II 3, ll(M). - "Von dem Atman heilt es, a, a. neti = na iti "no (unquote)" to Maitreyi's question whether having all the
(Hillebrandt 1921: 62) V 4, 27(M). wealth in the world would make her immortal (BAU 2.4.2). n the second
telling, by contrast, Yajtavalkya's response is neti neti (BAU 4.5.2 [sic]). Al­
7o A literal English translation would n as "The I is that Not". (�ertel 1 21: 2?6, � though this could be read as simply an emphatic doubling, [ . . . ] it is more
explicitly referring to Hillebrandt's interpretation of a as an �oen� amative
paic1e. V 4, 22(K)). Hertel seems to have.
tried to express he airmative connota-
tion by "ist", perhaps aiming at expressing a sense ke " (aullY) ts"
. ·

. . 75 This last one(only in K) can be ignored as a misplaced interpolation, dismissed also

71 "Nun die Veranshaulihung: Nicht ist es nicht so; denn es gibt auBer d1esem uhts
anderes Hoheres, von dem man sagen konnte: es ist niht so."(Ge�dner
. �?28/2 : 6 in the Limaye I Vadekar edition.
.
lO) II 3, 6(K). _"Von diesem Atman kann man nzcht sagen: er tst mcht so. (Geidner 76 agrhyo, a hi grhyate. asryo, a hi sryate. asailgo, a hi sajyate, asito, na vyathate, a
1928/2006: 69) N 4, 22(K). ri$yati(K). Thieme's atempt to versify this prose passage accompanied by the sug­
2 Geidner 1928/2006: 10. I 3, 6(K). gestion to take the resulting staza as the probable original is not acceptable, given
the siniicant alterations he was forced to make. Here is Thieme's versiication:
73 Geidner 1928/2006: 50. N 5, 15(K); 69. N 4, 22(K).
sa e$a neti nety ltma: agrhyo, na hi grhyate; aszyo, na hi siyate; na sajyate a yathate,
74 Referring to Geldner's double negation "Von die� em Atm� nnman nicht �gen: asango asito [hi sai](Thieme 1968: 720).
er ist nicht so." (1928/2006: 50), A. Mihaels, m his posscript to the :6 repnnt of
.
77 Hok (2002: 284): "D. The inale - [. . . ] The signiicance to the entire Cycle of the ad­
Geidner, adopted an amalgamation(§ 1.4.1.3). Counterin? Geldne: s appr�ah of
vaita perspective and its relevance to the fate after death is underlined by he early
a double negation(N 5, 15) with his own ranslation, Mihaels displays s n­
occurrence of the phrase neti neti[=BAU N 5, 3, W.S.]and, in the Ktva recension,
damental disaeement with Geldner: "Uber dieses elbst (atman) nn man nur
by the repetition of he entire "Advaita Rerain" toward the end of the episode[=
sagen: 'nicht [so], nicht [so]' (neti neti)."(Mihaels in: Geldner 1928/2006: 118).
BAU(K) N 5, 15, W.S.]".
 r
20 Walter Slaje
likely that this is at least an allusion to the neti neti "not (this), not (this)" of
the "Advaita Refrain"."78
Hock quotes neti neti out of context. He does not cite the line in whih it is
embedded. n context, this passage,79 however, yields a meaning, whih dif­
fers significantly from Hock's nterpretation. For, the line under discussion
actually reads:
sa hovaca maitreyr [ ] syiJl nv ahal tenamrtaho3 neti. neti hovaca yajiavalkya.
. . .
"Maitreyi asked n reply: "[ . . . ] would it, or would it not, make me immor­
tal?" "No," said Yajiavalkya." (Olivelle 1998: 127).
Clearly, we are concened here with a disjunctive interrogation sentence mar­
ked by the particle aha (na): . . . , or (not)?".80 This question is answered in the
"
negative by Yajiavalkya, who begins a new sentence: "No!" (na).81 Eah of the
direct constructions is ordinarily concluded by iti, whih formally results in
"neti'' [punctation] "neti''.
It is only by disregarding the interrogative particle aha placed before the irst
na and by ignoring sentence boundaries in general that a "neti neti response"
could be read into the given wording at all. Being artiicial in such a way,
Hok's neti neti construct is therefore invalid and must be excluded from the
corpus of neti neti instances in the BAU. Or else, other accidental neti neti for­
mations resulting from similar sentence constructions would all deserve to be
added to the corpus, somehing nobody could seriously attempt to do. Cp.,
e.g., BAU(K) ll2, 11, whih is anything but a neti neti occurrence:
yajiavalkyeti hovaca. yatrayaJl puru$O mriyata ud asmat prlJib kramanty tho3
neti. neti hovaca yajiavalkyab.
""Yajiavalkya," Artabhaga said again, "tell me - when a man dies, do
his breaths depart from m, or do they not?" "hey do not," replied
Yajiavalkya." (Olivelle 1998: 81).
78 Hok 2002: 282.
79 For a synoptic representation of both versions in their Katva and Madhyandina
recensions, cp. Hanefeld 1976: 2.
80 The translation in Slaje (2009: 185) of Maitreyi's question (BAU(M) V 5, 3) must be
completed by "oder niht?". As these two words were rejected as an addendum to
the proof correcions on account of their "insigniicance" and because hey would
"certainly go unnoticed", the reader is requested to correct Maitreyi's question and
Yajiavalkya's answer in the following manner: ""[...] mahten sie mih den un-
sterblih, oder niht (iho3 neti)?" - "Niht" (neti), [. . . ]."
81 "na" with a following iti as an unquote (resulting in neti by ni) ccurs oten in
Brahma.as and Upani�ads, particularly frequently with answers in the negaive
("no") .
Neti neti 21
2.2 Syntax �nd govement of the syntagm ni ti ni ti as a positive
express10n
Let us irst m to the syntax of only the nucleus (neti neti) of the phrase, which
in the Yajiavalkyakaa (§§ 2; 2.4) s as
si e$i neti nety atmi,
followed by
agrhyo, ni hi grhyite. iszyo, na hf siyate. asango, asito, ni sajyate, ni vyithate.
Of all . the proposals cited, the one taking iti as the theme of a predicative na,
as Sankara and some of his Westen followers preferred to do, is the least
probable int��r�tation: the word order is impossible and must be regarded
�s un-Sanskritic � every re.s�ect. If. (') as the scope of iti were to be negated
(m prose), the ordinary position of ztz used as unquote would be immediately
ater he word(s) quoted by it and would therefore be placed before, but never
after, na, as shown by the following sheme:
(X) iti na = "(X)" [is] not.
Altenatively, if iti it�elfformed the ��me of na, while na, seen from the aspect
of rheme, adds new information . to ztz and functions syntactically as its predi­
cate, it would result in:
iti na = "So not" = "Not so" = "It is not so"
n this regard, it is noteworhy that an "iti clause need not consist of words
actu�lly �poken or thought and may describe more generally a reason, purpo­
se s1tua�on, and so on" --Spei�er's "elliptical construction".82 Although iti na
:
ug�t stn�e ?ne as peculiar at fir�t .sight, we encounter a comparable syntactic
relationship m the well known "ztz ced, na" construction of objections in later
sholastic Sanskrit.83 Here, the diference to the BAU lies only in the haracter
�f a co�ditional p�r�od caused by ced, whih does not affect the syntactic rela­
tionship be�een zti and na, for actually it is iti or its scope - which is rejected
-
by constructions of that kind. Usage of fti cd is, however, testiied to already
in he Maitrayau Sallhlta:
nisnatii ced lhus [ . . . ] MS 1, 8, 9 (129, 7)
"Wenn man sieht, dass er nicht isst, so sagt man: [ . . . ]" (Delbrick 1888: 597)
82 �.g. , "with hese .�words]"; "in this [way]"; "thus [ng, reflecting, consider­
mg] ,, etc. Cp. Spe11er 1886:§ 497 (p. 384f) for a number of examples, as also Tubb/
ooe 2007: 215.
83 n iti ced, cp. Speijer 1886:§ 497, rem. 1 (p. 386), Tubb/Boose 2007: 244.
 r
22 Walter Slaje
This adds weight to the probability that the syntax of iti ni as will be proposed
for the BAU is indeed tenable here. The more so, since quasi-synonymous
expressions like evil ni (for iti ni) can actually be traced elsewhere in the
Satapathabrahmata:
yid evat n&vak$yo [ . . . ] SB 11, 5, 3, 13
"Hattest du nicht s o gesprohen , [ . . . ]" (Delbriik 1888: 366)
Na iti, in its reverse sequence of words, assuming with Sankara and others that
it shares the meaning of *na evam,4 would be entirely opposed to the normal
word order evim (I fti) ni. It is futile to search elsewhere in the Upani�ads for
evidence of a postpositive iti forming the topic of a negation. This fact nur­
tures the suspicion that the so-called 'traditional' interpretation in the line of
medieval commentators misses the point as far as the original intention of the
author of neti neti is concened. It also substantiates Wilhelm Rau's judgment
conceng Sankara's insuficient acquaintance with Vedic language and syn­
tax.
The second group of scholars, in taking iti as a quotation mark, seems to be on
safer ground:
na iti = "No(t)"
Suh a construction - although doubtlessly possible from the point of view
of Sanskrit syntax - does not yield satisfying results in terms of context and
meaning. A reasonable scope of a negation, purportedly even emphasized by
repetition, is entirely missing here - unless one wants to deny the itmin as
suh, whih is not reasonable (§ 2.4.1).
2.3 A contemporary exposition n the Madhuka..a
We may safely presume that the author of the neti neti phrase had addressed
his contemporaries with he intention of conveying a certain meaning to them.
Therefore, an exposition of his words, or parallel passages dating from about
this time, would be essential for tackling the meaning in question. Indeed, the
BAU supplies such requirements. The very irst inciden_e in �e received text
of the phrase is to be found in the Madhuka..a of the BAU (BAU�M) I 3, 1 1).
It immediately precedes Yajiavalkya's dialogue with Maitreyi (BAU I 4) and
84 n classical Sanskrit, evam or other quasi-synonyms of iti suh as ittham or tatha, but
never iti, can be placed ater their negation as well. n Brahma.a prose, ni titha is
used beside titha ni (Delbriik 1888: 342£).
Neti neti 23
therefore occurs in a textually close neighbourhood. Since the compositional
and textual pre-history of the BAU is unknown, it would be difficult to tell
rom where, or at what stage of revision, this piece might have been assigned
its present place in the given structure. The remaining three neti instances are
all put directly into Yajiavalkya's mouth in the K..a that follows. The im­
portance of this irst occurrence derives perhaps not so muh from its struc­
tural position ahead of the others - although this fact might not be without
some signiicance - but rather rom what it states. The phrasing is part of a
paragraph, whih can be analysed into three parts: (1) designation as idesa, (2)
parsing, (3) name and 'essence' as characteristics of adesis:
BAU(M) II 3, 11
(1) ithita adesa� I neti neti
(2) ni hy etismid iti nety anyit piram isti
(3) itha namadheyam satyisya satyim fti
2.3.l idesa
First of all, the denotation as 'idesa' deserves our attention. The considerable
number of so-called idesas used in the Upani�ads makes it possible to deter­
mine them as conceptual substitutes for certain notions. Usually, these notio­
nal substitutes are not immediately comprehensible. In any case, they are not
ordinary or plain 'names'. There is a striking difference between the concepts
of 'idesi' and 'name'. 'Names' (niman), or naming (nimadhya), are terminolo­
gically distinguished from 'idesa': f a 'name' is given in addition to an adesa,
it is explicitly spoken of as naman, or namadheya.
It was Paul Thieme (1968), who pointed out he problems involved in the
meaning of "instruction" as conventionally assigned to adesa, and established
its Upani�adic connotation in analogy with the linguistic "substitute" usage
by early grammarians.5 As the past forty years have seen no substantial ob­
jections to Thieme's paper, let alone its refutation, his approah must be consi­
dered as generally accepted and may - accoring to the standards of recognized
scholarship - be adopted as a starting-point for an inquiry into he neti neti­
idesas under consideration. To come to the point, an nderstanding slightly
85 I nd it diicult to account for a modiication of tdeSd in "rule of subsitution": "I
take adesa here as a technical term in he grmmatical tradition for the rule of sub­
stitution." Olivelle (1998: 501) on BAU I 3, 6 with reference to Thieme 1968. Strictly
speaking, the Upani�ads do not give any "replacement rules" anywhere to follow.
hey only quote substitute terms, no rules. Hok rendered ideSd by "purport" with­
out giving any reason (2002: 283).
24 Walter Slaje
different from Thieme's purely linguistic adesi notion will be suggested. For,
in the present case, the word adesa connotes something like "conceptual sub­
stitute" in the sense of a statement, or a term, suitable for replacing another,
notionally cognate or associative term. n other words, on its very first occurrence
"neti neti" would have been introduced as an apt replacement of "itmin". Its
primary function, then, was not to deine itmin in any way, nor to negate it by
saying, e.g., "no(t), no(t)". here is therefore good reason to assume that the
neti neti expression simply represents an idiom, which for some - perhaps
associative6 - reason was considered suitable for replacing the term atmin
rider certain circumstances. Piking up this trail can be helpful in illustrating
this claim. It necessitates a short digression on the use of adesi in the Vedic
Upani$ads. These - mostly enigmatic - adesas can be divided into word-, sen­
tence-, and method-replacements:
2.3. l.1 One-word adesis
The idesa given in ChU II 5, 1-2 ("bees") is determined as being very secret
(guhya):
guhya evadesi madhukrtaz I brahmaiva pu$pam 11111
"he bees are totally secret substitute terms. The flower is the formulation
of truth."87
te vi ete guhya adesaz] [ ... ] 11211
"The very same [bees as] secret substitute terms [ .. .".
This increases our suspicion that idesas6 were sometimes deliberately given a
mysterious or at least ambiguous shape. It is not unlikely that their true mea­
nings were to be kept from the uninitiated. Although the presence of some
sense can be perceived in them, the actual, but secret meaning would not re­
veal itself instantaneously.
86 In a writen communication (November 9, 2008), Harry Falk proposed to take adesa
in Upani�adic contexts in he sense of "association of ideas" rather than in that of
"substitution".
87 n the preceding paragraphs (III 1, 2-4, 1), the 'bees' had prearily been identi­
fied with the �c hns, the Yajus formulas, the S.man hants and he Atharvangiras
formulas one after the other, the 'flowers' with the respecive bodies of texts. hese
opening identiications culminate in he above statement about the absolute truth.
Cp. also hieme (1968: 719f) on s passage.
88 TU I, 1 1 and I, 3 are not expressive enough to serve as evidence as they merely give
enumerations: ''his was the substitute term (adesa), this the teahing, this the hid­
den connection (upani$ad) with he Veda, this the admonition." U I, 3: "Its head is
the Yajus formula as suh, its right side the �gvedic hymns, its left side the S.man
hants, 'torso' (iUman) is its substitute term (ad5a), [... ]."
Neti neti 25
ChU III 18, 1-2 uses the participle adi$ta in keeping with connotation of adesi:
mano brahmety upastta. ity adhyatmam. athadhidaivatam. aaso brahma. ity ubha­
yam adi$fa'l bhavaty, [ ... ] 1 1111
"With reference to the human condition one should venerate brahman as
mind. With reference to the cosmic powers, brahman is space. By way of
this, both have become te.minologically replaced, [ ... ]."89
2.3.l.2 Sentence adesas
2.3.1.2.1 Predicative nouns
ChU II19 gives a similar idesa in he form of a nominal sentence:
adityo brahmety adesaz [ ... ] 1 1111
"Brahman is the sun - this is the conceptual substitute."
Another instance of idesa in the form of a nominal sentence is contained in
ChU VII 25:
athato 'ha'lkaridesa eva. aham evadhastad, aham upari$fid, aha1 pascad [ ... ]
aham eveda1 sarvam iti 11111
"Here, then, is the core (eva) conceptual replacement of the speech sound
"I": Nothing but (eva) "I" [stands for] below; "I" [for] above; "I" [for] in the
west; [ ... ] nothing but "I" [stands for] this whole world."
atiita atmadesa eva. atmaivadhastad [ . . . ] atmaiveda1 sarvam iti 1 1211
"Here, then, is the core conceptual replacement of 'atman' : Nothing but
'atman' [stands for] below; [ ... ] nothing but 'ltman' [stands for] this whole
world."
2.3.1.2.2 Verbal predicates
The Kena Upani$ad (V, 4-6) enumerates two adesas for brihman: one with refe­
rence to cosmic powers (adhidaivatam), the second with reference to the human
condition (adhyatmam). Both adesas consist of sentences, and it is he sentence
character alone of an adesa, which maters for the present purpose. The sen­
tences under consideration are diicult enough to understand.0 Sholars have
accordingly presented difering translations.91 The irst is a subordinate clause
referring to cosmic powers and carries a mystical touh:
89 Similarly in ChU II 18, 2.
90 Cp. Thieme 1968: 20f [= l. Sehr.: 264ff] {"Die shwierigste Stelle ...").
91 I give only two examples: "Nun die (mystishe, seine Wahrheit enthillende) Er­
sezung dieses brahman: 'Dasjenige, was da als des Blizes [Liht] geblizt hat: 'ah! ' ;
26 Walter Slaje
tasyai?a adesalJ. yad etad vidyuto vyadyutad a3 itzn nyamzmi?ad a3 ity adhidai­
vatam 1 14 1 1
" A substitute expression (adesa) for [brahman] i s this: when that one has
lightened up [as a lash] of lightning92 [by making the sound] h! [which]
indeed made [one] shut [one's] eyelids with h! - This was with respect to
the cosmic powers. "9 3
The second, whih is a complete sentence, has seen contradictory translations,
too.94 Here is another one:
was die Augen hat shlieBen lassen: 'h!' - so mit Bezug auf den Makrokosmos."'
(Thieme 1968: 721 [= Kl. Shr.: 265]). W. Knobl drew my attention to a later and
slightly modified trslation of this passage by Thieme: "... was da als des Blizes
[Liht] aufgeblizt hat: [so daB man] 'a' [sagt], was da die Augen hat shlieBen las­
sen: 'a'." (Thieme 1972: 72 [= Kl. Sehr. I (195): 1002]). - "Here is its rule of substitu­
tion: the cry "h!" when lightng has flashed, the cry "h!" when it made them
blink - suh it is with respect to the divine sphere." (Olivelle 1998: 371).
92 Thieme (loc. cit.) took vidyuto as genitive. Similarly also Hanns Oertel in his trnsla­
tion of the parallel passage in the Jaiiniya Upani�ad Brahma.a (4.21.4): "What of
the lightning hath lightened: h! hath winked [nyami?at, W.S.]: h!" (Oertel 1896:
218). his reference to Oertel and the following exposiion were provided by Wer­
ner Knobl (written communication, December 24, 2008): "Wenn Thieme in seiner
Obersezung "[Liht]" ergnzt, so hat er ofenbar an ein Nomen dieser Bedeutung
gedacht. Ich vermute, er hatte das Neutrum jyoti$- im Sinn. Das ware insofem eine
elegante Losung, als dieses Nomen ,,zufallig" von der gleichen Wurzel gebildet ist
wie vidyutas und vyadyutat, indem namlih *dyoti$- dahintersteckt [ ...]. Die beiden
Nomina vidyut- und jyoti$- stehen eintrahtig nebeneinander zum Beispiel in dem
Vers W 7.33.lOa vidyuto jy6tiI ... [ ...]." Referring to his paper "Die besondere da­
deiktische Funktion des Demonstrativpronomens ETAD im Vedischen", read to the
30. Deutsher Orientalistentag in Freiburg on September 27, 207, Knobl furher­
more argues rom the bakground of his familiarity with Vedic texts that it is "[... ]
evident, daB auch in userem Saz etad eben diese [,,da"-deiktische] Funktion hat.
Dementsprehend wirde ich die Stelle so iibersezen: ,,Wenn das da des Blizes ge­
blizt hat ...". [...] ziehe es [ ... ] vor, anzunehmen, daB mit ,,das da" zugleih auf das
brahman, von dem ja ohnehin die Rede ist, hingewiesen wird, reilih auf ein brah­
man, das sich im blizenden Liht des Blizes versinnbildliht. Das Pronomen etad so
konkret aufzufassen, hat den groBen Vorteil, daB r damit einen Agens, namlih
den Verursaher (hetu-), der folgenden kausativen Handlung erhalten: ,,[Wen das
da] hat bnzeln }assen ... "." Olivelle's (loc. cit.) trslation ("when lighning has
lashed") does not reveal his analysis of the grammatical case. n he ingressive
aspect of /dyut, p. Roesler 1997: 40f.
93 According to Klaus' interpretation, "t is neither possible to perceive [brahman] by
the senses nor to reconize it by mental eforts. [...] it reveals itself in a moment, and
because of its self-revealing haracter it can be equated with a lash of lighning,
[ ...], and with a sudden idea, a flash of inspiration." See Klaus 193: 83.
94 "[ ... ] und nun mit Bezug auf das elbst (den Mikrokosmos): dasjenige, was da
gleihsam in den Sinn kommt - und es erinnert sih (schafft ein Erinnerungsbild)
Neti neti 27
adhyatmam I yad etad gacchatfva ea manai. anena caitad upasmaraty abhz�zatt
sattkalpai 1 1511
"With respect to the human condition [a substitute expression for brahman
is] 'this which enters, so to speak, the mind (manas). [One's] imagination
(sattkalpa) recollects (upasmarati) this [brahman] continuously by means of
the [mind]'."
2.3.1.3 Methodical adesas
ChU I 1 may be considered an exception in the sense that adesd seems to
have been seen here in the meaning of 'applied mehod' of conceptual sub­
stitution.95 n this passage, adesd only makes good sense when conceived as a
'method' , as can be judged from the following: Uddalaka inquired of his son
Svetaketu whether he had asked his teacher about the idesa, y which (yena)
somehing becomes understood, of whih one had not previously received
knowledge [had not had previous knowledge], etc. Svetaketu answers in the
negative and asks his faher to impart this 'method' (adesd) to m. The answer
to the question "by which" (yena) is consistently given by using modal adverbs
("the way, in which"):
yatha [ ... ] vijiatatt syat [ ... ] evartt [ ... ] sa adeso bhavati (ChU VI 1, 6)
"Ihe way (evam), in which (yatha) [such] unknown [things] can become
known [ ... ] is this method of replacing (adesa)".96
Since "a way, or a manner, how" corresponds to "method", adesa cannot mean
'rule', but must indeed mean 'method' here.
dadurch plozlih die Vorstellung -, [ ... ]." (Thieme 1968: 721). - "And with respect
to the body (ftman) - when someting here comes to the mind somehow and
through it the imagination suddenly recollects something." (Olivelle 1998: 371).
Oertel translated the JUB parallel (4.21.5, with enad for etad) in the following man­
ner: "[... ] That whih both goes as mind, as it were, and through it (mind) imagina­
tion continually remembers it (the brahan)." (Oertel 1896: 218f).
95 See also Thieme (1968: 717; 722f): "Auf einem besonderen Blatt steht der Gebrauch
[ ... ] in ChU 6.l.3ff [ ...] Uddalaka AU verkindet [die noh von keinem Lehrer ge­
lehrte Methode] als eine neue t von adesa, ein besonderes 'Ersezungsverfahren',
[ ... ]."
96 Cp. ChU I 3, -6: "By means ofjust one lump of clay one would perceive eveng
made of clay [ ... ]. By means ofjust one copper trinket one would perceive eveng
made of copper [ ...]. By means ofjust one nail-cuter one would perceive eveng
made of iron [ ... ]. at [ ... ] is how this [ ...] works." (Olivelle 1998: 247).
28 Walter Slaje
2.3.l.4 Determination of neti neti as sentence adesa
Let us now tum to the idesa of 'neti neti' in light of the above. There are idesas,
whih - in addition to their common designation - share two more characte­
ristic features with the neti neti phrase. These consist in 'essences', which are
added, and in he supplementation of a plain 'name':
ChU III 5, 4 (p. § 2.3.1.1)
te vi ete rasinittrasii [ . . . ] tini vi etiny amrtanam amrtani [ ... ] 1 14 1 1
"hese [last mentioned are] the very essence of essences.97 [ ] hey are the
•••
very essence of nectars [ ... ]."
Kena U V, 6 (p. § 2.3.1.2.2)
tad dha tadvanalt nima. [ ... ] 1 1611
"Now, its name is 'Made of that Stuf' (tadvana)."98
Viewed from the recurring expression of sa e$i neti nety atmd it is plausible that
neti neti was indeed considered an idesa for itmin in the form of a sentence­
like formulation.
2.3.2 Parsing
he commentatorial parsing added to this idesa demonstrates how the neti neti
sentence was syntactically analyzed at about the time of its composition, or at
least at a time predating the inal canonization of this text as Upani?ad.
n his regard, some may entertain doubts conceng he parsing haracter
I assign to the sentence following the neti neti-idesa. However, not only in
light of a number of similar explanatory passages elsewhere in he BAU - in
fact one of them is even in close vicinity {II 2, 5) to the neti passage-, but also
because the sentence proceeds analytically by incorporating root-text lemmas
clearly recognisable as such, its glossing character is - to me - beyond doubt.
Moreover, due to their formal resemblance in terms of glossing these explana­
tory statements indeed give the impression of being precursors to sholastic
commentatorial Sanskrit.9 For the sake of space, I conine myself to quoting
only one example from the BAU as a mere illustration:10
97 n he patten of this construction, cp. Oertel 1937.
98 n 'wood' = "mater'', see Thieme 1968: 721, n. 3 and Klaus 1993: 83.
99 n the structural haracteristics of the latter, p. Tubb I Boose 2007.
100 See, e.g., BAU(M) I 3, 3lf; I 5, 2-8; I 2, 5; V 15, 4 for further instances of this kind.
Neti neti 29
BAU(M) I 3, 30
('Root text')
asato mi sad gamaya
tamaso ml jy6tir gamaya
mrty6r mlmftalt gamayeti
{'Gloss')
sa yid dhisato ma sad gamayeti mrtyur v. asat, sad amfta11. mrtyor
mimftattgamaylmftalt ml kurv ity evaitad aha. (31) tamaso ma jy6tir ga­
mayeti mrtyur vai tamo, jyotir amfta11. mrtyor mamftattgamayimfta11 ma
kurv fty evaUad aha. mrtyor mimftattgamayeti n.tra tir6hitam ivlsti. (32)
Let us now m to the parsing of the neti-adesa (II 3, 1 1), whih construes the
syntagm and explains he meaning of neti neti in the following manner:
('Root text')
neti neti (= na fti na iti)
{'Gloss')
na1 hy etasmld iti1 na2 iti2 anyat param asti.101
As is evident, the above analysis does not at all result in a na-fti, na-iti construc­
tion, for the irst neti is dissected into na1 [hy etasmld] ii1 The position and the
•
emphatic explanation put on the irst ni1 by hi (= na h{) points to a negation of
he scope of (the second) iti2, which in this case would unction as an unquote:
ni1 hi "[ ... ]" (iti2).102 The scope of this second iti therefore covers the following
syntagm: "[iti1 ni2]".13 The parsing of the Upani?adic 'commentator' would
thus correspond to the regular word order of iti. n the present case, iti1 is
placed before ni2. This results in a syntactically satisfactory ni1 "iti1-ni2" (itz'2)
-
construcion.
The essential statement consists in the following:
na1 hf "iti1-na2" (ftt'2)
-
"For, [there is] no (na1 hf) "not so" (iti1-na2) - { fti2). "14
Accordingly, the entire exegetical sentence
na1 hy etasmld iti1 na2 iti2 anyat param asti15
101 Lemmas in bold, ni resolved.
102 he ni "[ .. " unquote-fti paten is also to be found in the Atharvaveda: i "ilpa"
.
iti; [ ...]ni "anupasecarf' ti; ni "idilt ea fi ea" fti. (AV(S) I 3, 24).
103 Olivelle limits its scope to only 'na': "I k the iti has been overinterpreted; it is
merely a device to refer to the preceding word, i.e., "the word a"." (Olivelle 1998:
501).
104 n further evidence of comparable constructions suh as vari i or fti cd, p.
above,§ 2.2.
105 Note that the accentuation of isti, required by the subordinaing conjuncion hi,
whih regularly - although not without excepions (Delbrik 1888: § 258, p. 525;
 r
30 Walter Slaje Neti neti 31

translates as: Extracted from this sentence and taken in isolation, neti neti ( ni1 iti1-ni2
= - fti2)
would come to mean:
"For (h), [there] exists (asti) nothing (nl1) else (anyat) beyond (param) that
(etasmid) [self,16 whih is] 'not in that way ' (iti1-na2) - (fti2)".107 "Nothing (na1) 'not (ni2) in that way (iti1)"'.

Hettrich 1988: 180f, n. 57f; 187f) - throws the accent on the verb (Macdonell 1916:
§ 180, p. 252), is missing in the ediions. he method of marking the accent in the
Satapathabrahmaa (cp. n. 6 above) allows no decision on whether we are con­
cened here with one univerbated form a-hi, or whether there are two accentu­
ated particles na and hf. Since na-hi is restricted to Salhita usage and normally
does not occur in Brahmata prose, whereas na hi is extraordinarily rare in Salhita
texts, but haracteristic of the language of the Brahmatas (Delbrick 1888: § 258, p.
524; Macdonell 1916: § 180, p. 237), i hi should be accepted as correct. he resul­
ting hi, taken togeher wih K. Hofmann's statement that "der phonemaische Ak­
zent eines Wortes [sih] fast immer durch den Vergleich seiner stellungsbedingten
Akzentuierungen aus dem SB selbst besimmen [HiSt]" (1975: 133) are decisive
factors for putting the accent on asti. n the other hand, should the transmitted,
unstressed asti indeed point to a statement made independently of the sentence
preceding it, hi cold be seen as a modal particle of emphasis (Hettrich 1988: 179-
183). he sentence haracter and its translaion would have to be modiied accord­
ingly: - "[here] exists (asti) in fact (h) nothing (l) else (anyat) ...".
106 n this referent, see below, § 2.3.2.1.
107 Hillebrandt (1921: 41) consrued diferently: "Es gibt nichts anderes, das lber
diesem iti a stinde", ting etasmat as a demonstraive in textually deictic (= 'cata­
phoric' according to the linguisic coinage of Blhler 1934: 122) function with ref-
erence to "iti-na" (iti). Similarly also Belloni-Filippi: "[ ... ] perhe nulla v'e di piu
sublime di questo 'non e cosl"' (202: 34) and Hok: "[. . . ] for there s nothing other
beyond this "not".", adding in a note that his "translation is approximate; the syn­
tax of the passage is quite unusual." (202: 283). Suh a consrucion is hypotheti­
cally possible, although not very likely. K. Kuper, e.g., was unable to present any
unequivocal evidence in favour of a cataphoric usage of etad in the ,V (2002: 163).
Delbrick, moreover, has emphasized the "[...] ausserordentlih haufigen anapho­
rischen Gebrauch von eta [ ... ]. eta knlpt nicht wie ta leise an, sondem hebt die
Identitat mit dem vorher genannten Begrif hervor." (Delbrik 1888: § 142, p. 220)
- For examples of anaphorically used etd in the ,V, eeKupfer 2002: 162f. From
his translation, it appears that T. Goto, too, took etismat in suh an anaphoric func­
tion: "Because there is beyond this one no other thing [that could be called] "so
(: this is ... )" [nor] "not so (: this is not ... )"" (Goto 2005: 2). However, Goto trans­
lated the preceding neti neti sentence by "not, not" according to the Mlller/Boht­
lingk model (§ 1.4.1.2): "Then the assertion (what it s) [of this, Ahnan = brahman- =
purU$a] is: "not ...", "not ... "". n the explanatory sentence following he neti-idesa,
Goto separates fti neti by inserting a disjunctive conjnction ("nor"), interpreting
the irst fti diferently from the above as "so" and the second one also diferently as
"not so" (word order according to the Sa\kara/Deussen model, § 1.4.1.1). I have
here adopted the anaphoric function for the simple reason that, f etasmad were
indeed deictic (p. Hillebrandt's approah), it would reer to fti1-ni2: "Nothing be­
yond (piram) that (etasmad) 'not in that way' (ii1-na2)." s presupposes that iti-
I maintain that this construction is syntactically sound and that it does yield a
contextually mathing sense.
2.3.2. l Construing the antecedents
he complete neti passage of BAU(M) I 3, 1 1
athnta adesah I neti neti
na hy etasmad iti nety anyat param asti
atha namadhyam sayasya satyam fti. pri1Jd vii satyal, te$lm e$i satyam
shows three idesa-features together: (1) designation as dea, (2) name
and (3)
'essence':
(1) atMta adesab, (2) atha namadhyam,(3) sayasya satyam
Its irst incidence, however, lacks a direct reference to the word atmin in the
narrowest con�ext. n its Place, · �uru$a ' occurs immediately before (BAU(M) I
.
3, 9-10). Despite the termmological variation, here is a grammatical and con­
ceptual conne�tio� �ith t�e n�tio: of itmin occurring in a passage preceding
.
the �assage using puru$a . This slightly earlier itmin paragraph (II 1, 23) and
,
the adesa passage under consideration here (II 3, 11) are notionally and gramma­
tically lined. Structurally, they have become separated by paragraphs I 2 1-6
("ri?dle of the sev�n �is"), 108 and I 3, 1-9 ("two forms of brihman"), whih are
noticeably thematically self-contained insertions:
[II 1 , 23: atman paragraph]
sa yatho�1Javib�is tantunoccared, Yithagneb ;udri Vi$phulfligi vyucc.r
, anty,
evam evismid atm.nab sarve pri1Jib sarve lodh. sarve devdh. sarvini
. bhutdni
�a was something already well known, although it had never been referred
to ear­
her, wherea� 'self' �as been d alt with just before, whih fact adds more
� weight to
the anaphonc function. As pointed out, the sentence under consideration
intends
t� give a syntacti al ana�ysis and explanaion of the neti neti-idei. he
� . assump­
tion of a cataphonc function of etismat is therefore exceedingly questionable
in he
�resent case. If we take fti-na hypothetically as the concrete application of the ea
(1.e., as the actually carried out replacement of he word 'itmin'), etasiit
could
indeed refer deictically to suh a replacement. s is again not without problem
s,
as the complete idesa also includes the irst ni1: it reads i fti-ni, not only fti-i
as
a mere part of it.
108 n a convincingly new interpretation of he riddle, see Ehlers 207.

32 Walter S/aje
sdrva eti iUmdno vyuccaranti. tdsyopani$dt satydsya satydm iti. prltzd vdi satyd1l.
te$lm e$d satydm.
[II 2, 1-6: insertion of the riddle]
[II 3, 1-9: insertion of the forms of brdhman]
[II 3, 10-11: pliru$a and neti passages con�ing the ltmdn para? rapJ
tdsya haitdsya puru$asya rupd11 ydthl mlhara7and1l vlso,, ydtha patz vlvika .
� :z,
ydthendragop6, ydt�lgnyarc�r, ydth! putz#rtal, ydtha s�krdvz�yuttd1 :
sakrdvidyutteva ha vl asya srtr bhavatz, yd evdl vea II 10 II dthata ldesdfz. netz
neti. nd hy etismld iti nety anydt pdram dsty. dtha nlmadheyam satydsya satydm
iti. prltzd vdi satyd1l, te$lm e$d satydm II 1 1 I I
he last line of the neti passage is of particular importance for reasons of con­
gruency:
dtha nlmadhyam satydsya satydm fti. prltzd vii satyd1l. te$lm e$i satydm (II 3,
11)
E$d needs a grammatically congruent antecedent. Moreover, the 'name'
(nlmadhya) "essence of truh" (satyasya satydm) requires a connection: who, or
what, should be called "Essence of truth" here, f not atmdn, or puru$a? f we
trace bak this line to the above-mentioned earlier passage (I 1, 23) separated
from the neti paragraph by the insertion of the riddle of the seven seers and
the two forms of brdhman, and compare them with each other, we encounter
a striking parallel:
[atmdn paragraph, II 1, 23]
tisyopani$dt satydsya satydm iti. prltzd vdi satyd1l. te$im e$i satydm
[neti passage, II 3, 11]
dtha namadheyam satydsya satydm fti. pratzd vdi satyd1l, te$im e$i satydm
he earlier passage (II 1 , 23) is deinitely part of a paragraph dealing with
'itmdn' . here can be no doubt that here the antecedent of 'tdsya' and 'e$d'
cannot be anything other han 'itmdn' , 19 considering he passage in its context:
[ . . . ] evdm evismid itminaz sdrve pratzdtz [ ... ] vyuccaranti. tisyopani$dt satyd­
sya satydm fti. pri.4 vii satyd1l, te$lm e$i satydm (II 1, 23).
. followed by
"[ ... ] so indeed do all the vital functions [ .. . ] spring rom th�s se. Its cm:re­
spondence is: "The real behind the real'', for the real consists of the vital
functions, and the [se] is the real behind the vital functions."110
n other words, tdsya and e$d refer bak to ltmdn in I 1 , 23, whih is called he
source of everything, even of the speciically mentioned vital powers (pritzi�) .
The last lne o f the later neti paragraph ( I 3 , 1 1 ) can hardly b e construed dif­
ferently.
109 o also Hok 2007: 99, n. 37: "e$ab (masc.) no doubt refers to itman 'the self' ."
1 10 Olivelle 1998: 4f. Note that Olivelle supplements "self' as the antecedent of e?a.
n the notion of upani$dd, see below, n. 1 12.
1
Neti neti 33
However, instead of itmdn, the immediately preceding 'puru$a' in the right
eye111 (II 3, 9-10) may just as well serve as the connecting syntactical k to e$d
(I 3, 1 1), which requires an antecedent in the masculine gender:
tdsyaitdsydmurtasyaitdsylmftasyaitdsya yatd etdsya tyasyai$d riso yo 'yi1l
dak$i.e 'k$in puru$az [ ... ] (9) tisya haitisya puru$asya rupi1l [ ... ] (10) ithata
idesatz [ ... ] te$lm e$i satyim (11).
2.3.3 Naming and essence
Havng explaned the true meaning of the concep
tual substitute expression
for itmdn, the author thereupon supplies a namin
g (nimadhya) for it, whih
any Sanskrit speaker would directly understand:
ithE nimadhyam: satyisya satyim fti. prltzd vii satyil. te$lm
e$i satyim
(BAU(M) II 3, 11).
"Now, its name: "Essence of truth". True are, to be
sure, the vital powers.
Their truth, [however], is the [ltmdn ]."
As demonstrated above, this lne clearly links the passage nder considera­
tion with the previous one of the itmdn paragraph in II 1, 23. n p articular, e$d
here can only refer to itmdn (or puru$a) there. The only diference between the
two is that here, instead of "naming" (nimadhya), "relation / subordination"
(upani$dd)112 is used: tdsyopani$dt: satyasya satydm ti [ . . . ] .
2.4 neti neti i n the Yajiavalkyaka.ia
n contrast to the wordng of the Madhuka.ia
(§§ 2; 2.3), in the
Yajiavalkyaka.ia the phrase runs as
si e$i neti nety itmd
igrhyo, ni hf grhyite. istyo, ni hf szryite. isango, dsito, ni sajyite,
ni vyithate.
111 This puru?a is said to be "the essence of the amorphous and mmortal [brdhman] n
motion" (II 3, 9).
112 This is the meaning assigned by Vacek (1991: 261£) to he term upani$ad in this pas­
sage, by taking Falk (1986) as starting point of his investigation. Olivelle (1998: 4f)
took it as "hidden name". However, since 'names' are always also 'correlated' to
the 'thngs' they refer to, the terms nlmadhya and upani$dd are likely to have been
considered as interhangeable here. n the epic connotation of he term, p. Hara
2000.
34 Walter Slaje
2.4.1 neti neti as a positive conceptual substitute for 'atman'
If, by way of the analysis proposed, we obtain an assertion that "there is
nothing else, whih is not in that way", i.e. that there is nothing, which would
difer from the ltman, there is an undeniable advantage in providing a positive
substitute for atman. Particularly in the context of ltman or brahman there is
normally no place for exclusion or negation in the Upani;;ads. n the contra­
y, they regularly work with inclusions, correlations, and equations. In the
present case, the double negation - as recognized also by Geidner - would
naturally represent an affirmation. Saying "nothing is not in that way" is tanta­
mount to "everything exists in the same way". This, then, results in a statement
about likeness or identity.
As stated earlier (§ 2.2), a reasonable scope of a negation as accepted by the
majority of scholars is entirely missing - unless one wants to deny the atman
as suh, whih is not reasonable. In fact, a sudden exclamation of "no! no!"
would really break the continuity of Yajtavalkya's statements (§ 2.4.3). Such
an motivated, unexpected exclamation abruptly interrupts the chain of the
series of statements even before it has reached its natural climax in the neti
neti paragraph, which concludes eah of these sections by rounding off the
argument. Therefore, the "no! no!" interpretation (§ 1.4.1.2) is unsustainable
in terms of context. In all probability, it is this background, which accounts for
many a tortuous exposition of the scope of this negation, as there is no suh
negation, even less a scope. Let it be noted that there is also no Upani;;adic evi­
dence to substantiate an assertion of a 'negative' concept of the atmin except
for the neti phrase itself and its interpretation in the negative as forced upon it
by Indian scholiasts and Westen scholars. Generally, interpretational endea­
vours of that kind end up in an explanation from a notional point of view. In
the lack of any evidence, it is just claimed that the author of his prase inten­
ded to express that the ltman could not be referred to by any positive term, as
the following quote - standing in place for many - illustrates:
"[ . . . ] Yajtavalkya uses the entirely negative expression neti neti 'not, not'
to haracterize the transcendental principle as being totally diferent from
anything that we can experience, or express in words."113
113 Hok (2007: 18), cp. also on p. 20: "[ . . . ] the important advaita refrain neti neti [ . . . ]
which [ . . . ] haracterizes the ultimate principle in purely negative terms." Here
is an expandable selection of further examples: Oltramare (1906: 7): "[ ... ] la ne­
gation porterait [ ...] sur ce qu'on en [scil. brihman, W. S.] peut dire ou penser."
Cp. Oldenberg: "Of course, negations coming after the starting sentence eliminate
only the imperfections of Atman." (Oldenberg 1915/1991: 40). See also 0. StrauB,
Deussen's former pupil: "Die berilhmte Formel ,,neti, neti" zeigt in ihrer Negativitit
Neti neti 35
he claim as such is, however, a mere construction and a contradiction in
terms at that. What sense does it make to say, there is no (positive) term for
atman? There have always been words for ' atmin' . Among them, the word
'ltman' itself and 'puru?a' rank as the most frequent. Not only does he body
of Upani;;adic texts abound in its usage, but the Upani;;ads also name number­
less characteristics of the ltman in the positive.114 Ar;;eyopani;;ad 9 is also of
interest in this regard, as it refers to the neti neti phrase by suggesting a posi­
tive meaning:
atha neti nety etad itthettheti
Whatever its exact sense, the explanation itthl ("thus I so") + iti "just so" =
given here conveys anything but a negation.
If I am not entirely mistaken, even Yajtavalkya, to whom the concept of
an ltman lacking any positive characteristics is imputed by the majority of
scholars, refers to the ltmin as that "[ . . . which] must be made the object of
perception, of leang, of reflection, [and] of attentive intemalization."115 It is
only under the precondition of a state of objectless unity (idvaita), into which
the individual ltmin has entered ater death, that Yajtavalkya characterizes
the ltman - in this and only this particular state - with good reason as un­
recognizable (§ 2.4.3), but never as generally indefinable or as indescribable.
As there are moreover no parallels in the Vedic Upani;;ads, not to speak of
Yajtavalkya's teachings, to substantiate the assertion that the atmin would
evade any positive designation - the reverse is true -, one must consider the
conventional "no! no!" analysis rather an assumption fabricated in the spirit
aufs deutlichste [ ... ]". (StrauB 1928: 137 [= Kl. Shr. : 288]). n like maner, Senart:
"yant a cet itman, il ne s'exprime que par des negations." (II 9, 26(K). Senart
1934: 62). "yant a lui, l'itman, il ne se deinit que par des negations." (V 4, 23; 5,
15(K). Senart 1934: 84; 88). So also van Gelder 1957: 4; 103f ("[...] aus Negationen
aufgebaute Aussage uber den Atman. [ ... ] eine Art Grundmotiv, Inbegrif wih­
tiger Wahrheit [ ...] die Inder meinen damit auh etwas Positives, und daB man
den Atman jedenfalls nicht erfassen kann und man niht denken soil, man kon­
ne n in Begriffe fassen."). Similarly, Thieme: "Bei dem Versuh, dieses hohste
Wesen lurch irgend etwas anderes Konzentrierteres, Kraftigeres zu ersezen [ ...],
kommt man immer wied�r zu einem negativen Ergebnis." (1968: 720). - "[... ] nega­
tive Kennzeichnung des Atman oder Brahman, weil es mit keiner sinnlichen oder
vorgestellten Wirklichkeit identiiziert werden kann." (Baumer 1997: 247-248).
"L'unico modo di cogliere l'Assoluto risiede nell'ammettere he qualsiasi deini­
zione e insoddisfacente (cr. BAU III 9, 26)." (M. Meli, Postfazione, Belloni-Filippi
2002: 127).
114 As far as the BAU is concened, positive haracterisations of, and allusions to, the
itmin are almost countless, cp. in particular BAU(M) V 4, 6, but also I 4, 31; 5, 10;
23; 6, 3; I 1, 23; 4, 5; 7-12; II 4, 16; II4, l; 5, 1 ; 7, 7-31 ; V 3, 22, and many more.
1 15 BAU II 4, 5; V 5, 6. Cp. Slaje 2002: 211.
36 Walter Slaje
of "well begun is half done'', voiced in the tone of utter conviction. The degree
of the persuasiveness of apodictically made translations and their impact on
subsequent sholarship should not be underestimated. It is a proven way to
get translations accepted by ofering them without justiication. Attempts at
an explanation merely arouse suspicion. Joel Brereton has made an apt remark
of lasting validation: "Among other things, familiarity breeds acceptance."116
There is some likelihood that the present neti case fuishes another piece of
evidence to conirm Brereton's wnning statement.
2.4.2 neti neti compared to 'tat tvam asi'
Brereton's (1986) interpretation of tat in the mah.v.ya 'tat tvam asi' of the
Chandogya-Upani?ad (I 8-16) deserves to be recalled for drawing a possible
line to Upani?adic adverbs of manner used n similar comparisons. From the
viewpoint of Vedic syntax, tat could indeed have an adverbial unction there:
"in that way are you, Svetaketu."117 Later Vedanta traditions - and Westen
scholars following in their wake - interpreted it diferently: "That art thou".
If Brereton's interpretation proves tenable, Upani?adic equations could have
been based on qualiications of manner as well. Compared on a trial basi� to
suh a potential function of tat and supported by doctrinal grounds, fti (BAU)
would appear to parallel the usage of tat (ChU):
ChU: "In that way (= like the brihman) are you."
BAU: "Nothing is not in that way (like the itmin)."
It not only conforms exactly to the general notion and the modes of (.dei)­
expressions prevalent in the Upani?ads, but also to the passage (II 1, 23) pre­
ceding the neti paragraph, where the .tmin had been described as the source
of everything that there is. However, .desas, as we have seen, are haracterised
by an enigmatic wording, the meaning of whih would not disclose itself to
the uninitiated straight away - except for those, of course, ''who understand"
(ya eval veda).
2.4.3 neti neti in context
2.4.3.1 The syntax of sa e$i
The results achieved so far ought to stand the test of comparison with the
remaining three passages of he Yajtavalkyakf.ia (§ 2), whih share the fol­
lowing identical wording:
116 Brereton 1986: 98.
117 Brereton 1986: 109; cp. also Olivelle 1998: 560f.
Neri neti 37
si e?i neti nety atmd. igrhyo, ni hi grhyite. isiryo, ni hi siyite. isango, isito, ni
sajyite, ni vyithate.
If, on a trial basis, we 'extract' he .desa portion (§ 2.3.1 .4)
si e?i [neti nety] itmd
from the complete sentence,
si e?i [... ] itmd
remains as the frame structure.
One should however be careful not to construe s a e$i rashly as two de­
monstratives emphatically referring to .tmin as the subject of the sentence: -
"this (very) self [ ... ]".
At irst sight, i.e. as long as one neglects the last words from the paragraphs
preceding these pronouns, sa e$i may indeed appear to have suh a deictic
unction. There is the problem that, if interpreted as demonstrative pronouns
only pointing to he following noun .tman, he context would be disrupted,
forcing the neti neti passage into an isolated position.
n fact, each neti neti instance is haracterised by a preceding special topic
treating essential doctrinal points. We must therefore consider the possibility
that the pronoun si under consideration might actually unction anaphori­
cally. Supposing it referred back to its antecedent in the preceding sentence,
it should be in inverse agreement with the predicative noun (.tmin) in accor­
dance with ordinary syntax. Under these circumstances, he frame construc­
tion of
si e?i [ ... ] itmd
would tum out to mean:
"[And] this one (si) [ ... is] this (e$i) itmin [ ... ".
n this way, '.tman' is no longer the subject ("this self is ... "), but has become
the predicate of the sentence: "[XY] is the atmin."118
Not only does the context strongly suggest diferent referents of sa and e$i
here, but also there are parallel passages in Vedic prose, which are supportive
of the proposed syntactic construction in hat the irst of the two pronouns can
function anaphorically, the second deictically:
sd heyi'fl prthivy alelayat (SB 2, 1 , 1 , 8)
"Diese Erde shwankte (wobei sd anaphorisch, iyim artikelhaft ist)" (Del­
brik 1888: 212)
118 Similarly construed by Goto: "hat is this (well known) itman [...". (205: 2).
 Walter S/aje Neti neti 39
38

e sa and e?a can have diffe­ fely pre�uppose that si refers back to samani mentioned last in the sequence of
Moreover Delbrik has recorded instances, wher
after be used in he more com­ foundations. He equates "this" (si) 'equalizing breah' with "the" (e$i) atmin,
rent refer�nts (as above), but may immediately
ssion ("this very [one]"): hus making it the predicate in the sentence:
mon pronominal sequence as emphatic expre
e?a juhvatsu vasati (AB sa e$i [ . . . ] atmi.
bhavaty asyanucaro, ya eva!l veda. sa vi e?a ekatithi:z, sa "[And] this (si) [equalizng breath is] this (e?i) atmin . . . "120
5, 30, 8) . . ·

dieses weiss. Das [ = �na-

"Demjenigen wird ein Gefolgsman zu Theil, der . 2) BAU(M) V 2, 6
c
phoric sa, W.S.] ist jener [= deicti �e a, W.S.]
..
ek0, dies �r selbe [= emphatic sa
bei den Opfem den. (Delbr uk, loc.cit .) [IV 2, 5]
C$a, W.S.] weilt
tisyq vi etisya puru?asya �ricr dfk prilca:z praJi, dik?iJa dig dik?iJaz praJi:z,
of si and e?i in the context of pr�trci 1k pratyilca:z p;aJa, udrcr �ig udalca:z praJi, urdhvi dig urdhv.:z prlJi,
Let us now consider the respective antecedents
the received textual structure: ivacr dig ivalca:z prtJi:z, sirva disaz sirve priJl:z.
[IV 2, 6]
1) BAU(M ) II9, 28 si .e?i neti nety atmi. igrhyo, ni hi grhyite. isryo, ni hf sfryite. isango, sito, ni
[III 9, 27] . . _ · · · sa;yite, ni vyithate.
nv �pan�z prih?thz.ta i!1.
kismin nu prai:z priti?thita ity. apani itl. kism�n
:z priti?th1ta ity. udani itz. kismm nudani:z pritz?thzta Not unsurprisingly, this second neti instance occurs also in the context of vital
vyani iti. kismin nu vyani
iti. samani iti. powers praJi), actually with reference to the vital breaths of he purusa in the ·

��� . right eye121 (V 2, 2-5):

srryite. isalgo, iszto, ni
si e?i neti nety atmi. igrhyo, ni hi grhyite. isiryo, ni hi
tisya vi etisya puru$asya [ ... ] sirva d£sa:z sirve praJ.r (5)
sajyite, ni vyithate.
"All the vital functions together of this person constitute all the quarters."
valkya with a series of ques­
n this neti neti-instance, Sakalya hallenges Yajta (Following Olivelle 1998: llOf).
Event ually, he dispute rea0es
tions, all directed to 'foundations' (priti? thita).
� before, Yajtav�lkya continues again with si e?i (V 2, 6), evidently refer­
last enqui ry is about the foundation
the 'vital powers' (pra1:f z), and Sakalya's 1 9 r :g back to pr.Jab as the last word of the immediately preceding sentence
: 1
of the so-called 'equalizing breath' (sami ni)
with reference to atmin (V 2, 5):
n nadani:z priti$thita iti.
kismin nu praJi:z priti?thita ity apani iti [ ... ] kismi sa e$i [ . . . ] atmf.
samana iti (III 9, 27). "[And] these (si) 122 [vital powers are] tis (e?i) atmin ... "
""n what is the out-breath founded?" "n the - n-breath." [... ] "n what
."" (Olivelle 1998: 1 00£) .
is the up-breath founded?" "n the link-breath
-
3) BAU(M) V 4, 27
h" in the �ollowin�) can hardly
Clearly, samani (translated as "equalizing breat [IV 4, 24]
answer m the dispute. To be
be assumed to have been considered the nl si �i �yim �tmi sirvasya visi sirvasyesana:z sirvasyidhipati:z sirvam idi!l
as he vital function, whih con­ prisstz yid zdi!l kilca [ . . . ]
sure, the Prasna Upani?ad explains samln a
[IV 4 , 25]
trols digestion : tim et�!l �edanuvacanena vividi$inti [ . . . ] etim evi pravr.jino loim rpsinta:z
l nayati (PU II, 5)
madhye tu samanah. esa hy etad dhutam annat!l sama! privra;antz.
the equal izing breath [is l�cated. It
"n the middle [of the body ], however, [IV 4, 26]
se it equal izes food that has been ofered mto [the
is called samana], becau etid d� sma vai tit parve brahmav. anucani vidvimsatz prajd!l ni amayante.
body] ." kf!l pra;iya kari?yimo ye$fl no 'yim atm&yim loki iti. te ha sma putrai?aviyas

t would be implausible to assume that the

'equalizing brea�' (samini) c�uld
.
ation under discussion here. Let it be 120 his notion (cp. also BAU II5, 1) concurs wih Olivelle's general obsevation that
have been considered the absolute found
with si e?i (II9, 28), pointing to "several Upni�ds equate breah with life nd even wih a person's self (atman)."
noted that Yajtavalkya continues his answer
lizing breath'. Therefore, we may sa- Olivelle 1998: 23.
an ultimate foundation of also the 'equa
121 n he puru$acontext of the very irst neti neti occurrence (I 3, 1 1), p. § 2.3.2.1.
119 n he problem of he diferentiation and the exact meing of the prillS, p. Oli­ 122 It is obvios hat he usage of the singular here corresponds to he rule of inverse
velle 1998: 23. agreement of pronouns with her nomnal predicates.
 Walter Slaje
40
ea vittai$aJdyts ea lokai$aJiyts ea vyutthdydtha bhi<?tcaryal!l caranti. yd hy eva
putrai?aJd sd vittai?aJd, yd vittai$aJd si lokai$aJobhe hy ete e?a1Je eva bhivatai.
[IV 4, 27]
sa e$i neti nety atmi. agrhyo, na hf grhyate. asrryo, na hf srryate. asailgo, asito, na
sajyate, na vyathate.
he third and last neti instance appears in a context, which addresses he itman
directly. Here, 'itdn ' makes up the core topic of the paragraphs preceding
the neti neti phrase (V 4, 24-26). Immediately before the phrase is introduced,
mendicants are dealt with, who are said to have abandoned all desires becau­
se they had made the itman their only sphere:
ki!l prajaya kari$yamo ye$ll no 'yam atm .yam loki iti [ ... ] (26)
"What is the use of offspring for us, whose realm is the atman?"
The subsequent pronoun sa (27) must again be seen as referring bak to he
previously mentioned atman (26) and e$d as ng it with the itman of the
following sentence. The context will only be meaningfully preserved by an
anaphoric construction with the previously mentioned 'itmin ' as antecedent:
sa e$i [ . . . ] atma.
"[And] this (si) [ttman as just referred to is] this (e$i) ttman ... "
2.4.3.2 The phrasing sa e$d na iti na iti atmi in context
If, subsequent to these operations, we re-insert the "neti na"-iti portion ex­
tracted earlier, it reveals itself as adesa in juxtaposiion wih itman:
sa e?i [na iti-na] ity atmd
, . . , . ,
"[And] this (si) [ ... is I are] this (e$i) atman, [the adesa] for whih is (1h): na
iti-na"'.
neti neti could
As I have tried to demonstrate, a strictly verbatim translation of
n as
"nothing is not in that way".
However, once the meing has become clear, an idiomatic translation may
be used instead. Therefore, there is no reason not to render the phrasing idio­
matically as
"everything exists in that way'',
sion "nothing is
whih is an equivalent in the positive to he negative expres
not in that way".
Neti neti 41
2.4.3.2. l Translation proposal
he following translations can be derived from the above patten:
II9, 28
"This [equalizing breath is] this self, [the conceptual substitute] for whih
is: "everyhing exists in that way"."
IV 2, 6
"These [vial powers are] this self, [the conceptual substitute] for whih is:
"everything exists in that way"."
V 4, 27
"This [self just referred to is] this self, [the conceptual substitute] for which
is: "everything exists in that way"."
2.4.3.3 The concluding part
There is at least some probability that he wording immediately following the
three neti neti portions just dealt wih may have led scholars on the track of
their negative interpretation:
agrhyo, na hi grhyate. asryo, na hi srryate. asango, asito, na sajyate, na vyathate.123
1e series of negations here (a0 - na, a0 - na; a0, a0 - na, na) is likely to exer­
ClS�.a psychol.ogical efect on an instinctive understanding of neti neti as "not,
not , or he like. However, it must be recalled that these are the words of
Yajiavalkya, and that Yajiavalkya on several occasions, particularly in the
course of hi� dial?gue with MaitreyI, maintained that the atman in its post­
. .
mortem, de-md1v1dualized state can no longer be cognized. n a uniied state
(ad�a ita)124 o� this nature. �e cognizing subject (vijlitf) would not only lak
ord�ary ob1ects of c�gution, but also an awareness of itself.15 Although it
. .
remains conscious �v17inan), there are no objecs to be perceived any longer
�s se.parated. rom itself.16 he morphemically inherent linguistic argument
mphes that 1t cannot be made the objec t of its own cognition (vijlya), becau­
se m suh a case it would lose its intrinsic state of being the cognizing agent
123 (K) ... asalgo, a hi sajyate, asito, a vyathate, na ri?yaty.
124 Note tat he word advaita, which again carries the posiive meng of a ied,
homogenous state, alhough formed wih the negative prex a0, had ben coined
by Yajiavalkya nd may therefore be assined to s personal lnuage (Wizel
2003: 128f).
125 yatra v asya savam atmaivdbhut [.. . ] tat .a il vjanyad (I 4, 16; V 5, 25).
126 vijain vai tad vijiyal i vfjantti [ . . . ] na tu tad dvitiyam asti tato 'nyad vbhakal yd
vijiniydt (V 3, 30).
 Walter Slaje
42
(vijna-tf). 127 In contrast to the empirical atmin, whih perceives objects of the
surrounding world as different from itself, there can be no second cognizing
instance making it he object of cognition as soon as the de-individualized
atmin has tuned into a single whole. This is a standard, recurrent topic in the
Yaj.avalkyakat.a and may be considered part of Yaj\.avalkya 's personal doc­
trine. All these sections typically build on epistemologically antagonistic pairs
suh as "the agent of perception is not perceived [on his part]; [ ... ] the agent
of cognition is not cognized [on his part]". 128 These negative haracterisations
only have the purpose of pointing out he impossibility of cognizing he itmdn
as an object when everyting has become a uniied whole. .s we have seen,
the neti neti phrase, too, refers to the itmin in its de-individuaiized state, as
the atmdn being everything, when there is nothing that would not exist in the
same way as the itmdn does in its absolute state. In my opinion, the expression
neti nd ("nothing not in that way" I "everything [exists] in that way") refers to
this uniied state of the itmdn when all objects of cognition have vanished by
necessity. Therefore, the explanatory statements dgrhya, etc. are quite suitably
introduced at this concluding point atempting to describe the particular state
of objectless unity. In the ontological and epistemological absence of anything
else,
"[the self] is unrecognizable, for it cannot be cognized [by another subject
of cognition]. It is indestructible, for it cannot be destroyed [by another
agent] . It has no contact [with anything else], is not bond [to anything
else]; it is not attracted [by anything else], it does not detah itself [from
anything else]" (agrhyo, ni hf grhyite. asfyo, ni hf sryate. asalgo, isito, na
sajyite, na vyathate).
Interpreted in this way, I trust the neti neti paragraphs in the Yaj.avalkyakt.a
not only it the context in every single case, but also appear to be meaningful
from Yaj.avalkya 's doctrinal viewpoint.
2.4.3.4 One neti neti paragraph translated in context
Here is one complete neti neti section translated according to the interpretation
as just proposed:
BAU(M) III 9, 28
"This [equalizing breath is] this self, [the conceptual substitute] for whih
is: "everyting exists in that way".
It is nrecognizable, for it cannot be cognized [by another subject of cogni­
tion]. It is indestructible, for it cannot be destroyed [by another agent]. It
127 vijiltiram [... ] kena vjtnzylt (I 4, 16; V 5, 25). Cp. Slaje 202: 217.
128 ad?to dra$fi [... ) ivijilto vijiltQ [... ) rzanyo 'sti dra$fd [ ... ) rzanyb 'sti vijnatJ (II7, 31; 8,
11; V 3, 23-30, etc.).
Neti neti 43
has no contact [wit� anything else], is not bound [to anything else]; it is not
attracted [by anything else], it does not detah itself [from anything else]."
2.4.4 In quest of parallels
The occurrence of neti neti in he assumed sense is signiicantly restricted to
the four instances in he BAU(M) we are dealing with here. Ar?eyopani?ad 9
(§ 2.4.1) is no original expression but apparently a reference to the BAU. Neti
neti is uniqu� in some ways, and it is to be doubted that an independent m
of phrase will be raced elsewhere. 129 I m aware of one instance of a "neti"­
occurrence � a Budd�st text, �hih at irst sight could suggest a relationship
.
w1� the et p��s�ge m he BAU. In his Va.arhava.astotra, Maqceta puts
. .
� �
a smgle na (itz) m he mouth of Sariputra, who had been asked about his
knowledge of the Buddhadharmas:
"Durch den Heerfihrer deines Dharma, der das Baner aller Harer ist
�urh �· der dir personlih aufwartet mit der Erkl.rung tiber die Un�
. .
ubertrefhcke1ten, wird, befragt lber (seine) Kennnis der Buddhadhar­
mas, die nvergngliche Tiefgrlndigkeit der Buddhadharmas erkl.rt' in-
dem er sagt: "Nicht (so)"."
tvad�harmasentpatina sarvasravaaetunt I tnuttayanuvadena sak$lt <t>vam
upatl$fhatt I I vythyitam anuyuktena buddhadharmajlatiz prati I ne[t]i [y]a[ha]
rati buddhadharmagambhryam avyayam II I 15-16 1 1 (Harmnn1987: 76-77)
Here, na (iti) could theoretically be subjected to two interpretations. The most
.
plausible one - also bone out by the exegetical tradition relected in the Ti­
be�� translation - is he assumption hat na simply expresses Sariputra's in­
ability to answer the question about his knowledge of the Buddhadharmas.10
In this case, the passage cannot have anything in common with the BAU. As
129 here are two instnces of neti neti, whih at irst sight could give rie to suh n
impression, but whih have acually been caused by mere formal rules of Sanhi
application: tasmad ida11 sirab parlil va neti neti (B I 407). In a writen comni­
�atio� (November .11, 2008), Dr. Gerhard Ehlers proposed the ollong analysis:
1) Ene Handshrift hat doppeltes neti, die ndere nur einfahes. 2) Der erste Teil
des Sa�es [ ... ]: ,,Deshalb ist der Kopf hier weg- (oder vorwarts) gewndt." 3) [...]
z�rlege ih einfahes oder doppeltes neti n na + l + iti. 4) Interpretation des iti im
Sne von ev�m. 5) �ortlihe bersezng: ,,Niht her- (oder rukw.s) gewndt
.
(zur emen e1te): so (1st der Kopf), niht her- (oder rukw.rts) gewandt (zur nde­
ren Seite): so (ist der Kopf). "" - nother instance is MBh II 42, 19: tva11sighral
gacchasrty eko 'bravln neti tathlparab I neti neti ea tau tlta parasparam athocatuh II. Here
it is obvious hat two speakers say "no" to eah other, nd that both itis herefore
fnction as unquotes of na.
130 Cp. Hartmnn's commentary, loc. cit. A comprehensive list of sill npublished
framents, among hem also V.arhava.astotra I 16, cn be ound n Hmnn
2009: 239f.
44 Walter Slaje
a second interpretation - although less likely from the angle of c�ntext -- ?�e
could hypothetically assume the subject of the negation to be the impossibiliy
ofmaking any verbal statements about the Buddhadharmas:
vyakhyatam buddhadharmagambhrryall neti vyaharata
" [He] expiains the depth of the Buddha dharmas by uttering [the negation]
"no" . "
Had this been the way Matrceta conceived the doubled neti of the BAU, the
most obvious thing for him and his fellow Buddhists to do would have ?een
to direct such an emphasized negative statement about the itman effectively
against the Brahmins (§ 3). As this has not happened, we must take for granted
this second, hypothetical altenative of interpreting the Vaiarhavaia�totra
�
passage does not work either as a sensibl� paralle . F��hermore, proJected
. must have considered it as unsuitable for suh a purpose.132
historically onto the late Vedic understandmg of neti. neti, it would force the
assumption that the BAU had supported the view that it wa� impossible to
make any verbal statements about the itman. In contrast, the BA_ d�e� abo�nd
in positive verbal statements about the itman, but holds that the �e-mdivid�alized
atman - despite continuing cognitive functions - lacks cognizable ob;ects (§
2.4.3.3).
I think the key to the problem of such an exclusive usage of neti ne:i is to ac-
cept Yajiavalkya as the individualist he was. Wi�el (2003) ha� �aphically de­
.
monstrated Yajiavalkya's outstanding personality and convmcmgly illustra­
ted his personal language with a number of examples of neologisms and �or­
mations of concepts. The same may apply also to he present case. The phras�g
gives the impression of a witty word play worthy of only Yajiavalkya, w�h,
although it does have a meaning in principally intelligible form, ob�cures it on
the surface level. His eloquent tum of phrase would have revealed itself to he
initiated as "nothing is not in that way'', but would perhaps have remained
dark in some way ("no, no") for the exoteric rest.
3 Summay
Disregarding the context, there are admittedly several possibilities o� constru­
ing, understanding and traslating neti neti. Context and late �edic syntax
narrow them down a bit. The neti neti sections cannot be treated mdependent
of the preceding paragraphs and must also not disregard Yajiavalkya's idio­
syncratic language and philosophical doctrine. This background s�ggests ta­
king neti neti as a positive replacement (adesa) of �he term 'a!man' Juxtaposed
to it. An airmative neti n.131 is preferable to the mterpretation of an empha­
tically repeated negation of he semantic identiiability of he atman, as post-
131 Cp. also Geldner's construction of a double ne?ation �th a goveng what fol-
lows and thus resulting in "one canot say: he 1s not so (§ 1.4.2.2).
Neti neti 45
Vedic traditions, pre-modem Vedanta exegetes and modem scholars would
possibly have liked to explain it by construing a pair of duplicate expressions.
Accepted as a positive conceptual replacement, any attempt at interpreting it as
a negative deinition of itman vanishes into thin air. In the latter regard, the
striking silence observed by Buddhist philosophers in connection with this
phrasing may serve as an indirect proof supporting the proposed assumption
•' of an originally intended positive statement. A sruti passage deining the itman
�·
in he negative would have been given a very warm welcome by the Bud­
dhists, who would not have hesitated to make ample use of it by confronting
the Brahmins with their own revelation of a 'negatively' deined soul (atman).
The mere fact that they - to my knowledge - did not use the neti neti phrase
against their opponents in the expected manner seems to indicate hat they
It should be recalled hat wih the exception of the much-ignored Hille­
I
brandt, previous translators were conspicuously reluctant to give any philo­
logical eplanations to justiy their renderings. Instead, ex cathedra expositions
were offered of conceptions entertained about the meaning of neti neti. Within
the framework of duplicate negative expressions none of the afiliates of the
"no(t) no(t)" and "not so" factions ever objected to each other.133 The advocates
of these deviating approahes do not seem to have entered into any philolo­
I gical discussion. Anyway, neti neti as a pair of duplicate negative expressions
(§ 1.4.1) is the least plausible interpretation. Construing in line with Sankara
("not so") proved to be untenable (§ 1 .4.1 .1). In light of the Upani�adic parsing
of he neti neti-adesa and from the doctrinal as well as from the contextual
points of view, the negative expression model as discussed in § 1 .4.1 .2 s on
particularly shaky ground. Consequently, taking neti neti as a "neti " sn­
tagm wih a positive meaning as attempted in the present paper (§§ 1 .4.2;
2.2) appears to be a viable interpretation for the time being. In proposing s
approach, I make no claim to offer the ultimate solution. All I maintain is to
have subjected the neti neti phrasing to a historico-philological examination by
considering it in its structural, syntactic, and doctrinal contexts, trying not to
disregard the fact that it is late Vedic thought, whih determines the BAU. My
own German rendering of neti na with "nihts nicht ebenso"14 is to be seen n
accordance with he above.
132 This fact might point to an understanding of Yajiavalkya's statement n he posi­
tive before early medieval Vedanta exegetes started to misconsrue and to twist
it. Taking the large view, the impact of the latter on contemporary philosophical
systems was quite limited; their interpretations remained largely conind to dif­
ferent Vedantic milieus and were paid little attention to by others. s situaion
changed only about the irst half of he second millennium AD (§ 1.2).
133 he diference between the meanings of "no(t)" and "not so" were possibly not
considered to be of signiicance.
14 Slaje 2009.
46 Walter Slaje
Bibliography
AB AitareyabrahmaJa. yoted after Delbrik 1888.
Advayatarakopani$ad Advayatarakopani$ad. In: Upani$atsalgraha;: 384-386.
Ar$eyopani$ad Ar$eyopani$ad. In: L/V
As The Agamasastra of Gau.apada. Ed., transl. and an­
notated by Vidhushekhara Bhataharya. Foreword by
Christian Lindtner. Reprint. Delhi 1989.
AV(S) (Athavaveda, Saunaka). With the Pada-patha and
Sayatacarya's Commentary. Ed. [ .. ] by Vishva Ban­
. Nir.aya of Anandagiri. Ed. by J. L. Shastri. Delhi 1980.
dhu. Part I. [V. I. Ser. 13.] Hoshiarpur 1960, 21990.
Baumer 1997 Bettina Baumer, Upanishaden: die heiligen Schriften
Indiens meditieren. Miinchen 1997.
BAU(M) s. Bohtlingk 1889.
s. Tus: BrhadaraJyaka-Upani$ad I Madhyandina Re­
cension. n the basis of the edition by Albreht We­
ber, he ;atapatha-Brahma.a in the Madhyandina­
;akha with exracts from the commentaries of
Sayata, Harisvamin and Dvivedanga, Berlin 1849 I
Repr. Varanasi 1964 (Chowkhamba Sanskrit Ser., 96).
Edited by Marcos Albino 1996-1997. TITUS version
by Jost Gippert, Frt a/M. (31 .1.1997 I 28.2.1998
I 21.6.1998 I 15.10.1999 I 1 .6.2000 I 7.12.2008).
(http: / /titus.uni-rrt.de/texte/etcs/ind/aind/
ved/yvw /upanisad/bau/bau.htm).
BAUBh (Sankara, BrhadaraJyapan�adbhi$ya). Complete works
of Sri Sankaracharya. Vol X. Rev. ed. Madras 1983.
Belloni-Filippi 2002 Ferdinando Belloni-Filippi, Brhadara.yaka Upani�ad.
L'Upani�ad del gran libro anacoretico. A cura di Mar­
cello Meli. [Conoscenza religiosa. 30.]. Milano 2002.
BigavatapuraJa (BhigavatapurlJa). Bhagavata Pur.a of Kr�.a
Dvaipayana Vyasa. With Sanskrit comm. Bhavartha­
bodhini of Sridharasvamin. Ed. by J. L. Shastri. Delhi
1983.
Bohtlingk 1889 Otto Bohtlingk, Brhadaratjakopanishad in der
Madhja.dina-Recension. Hrsg. u. ibers. St. Peters­
burg 1889.
Brereton 1986 Joel B. Brereton, "Tat tvam asi" in context. In: ZDMG
136, 1 (1986): 98-109.
Neti neti 47
Brereton 2006 Joel B. Brereton, The Composition of the MaitreyI Dia­
logue in he Brhadaratyaka Upani�ad. In: JAOS 126, 3
(2006): 323-345.
Bronkhorst 2007 Johannes Bronkhorst, Greater Magadha. Leiden 2007.
Bronkhorst 2008 Johannes Bronkhorst, Aux origines de la philosophie
indienne. Gollion 2008.
BSuBh (Sankara, Brahmasltrabhi$ya). Brahmasutra-Sanka­
rabha�yam. With the comm.: Bha�yaranaprabha of
Govindananda, Bhamati of Vacaspatimisra, Nyaya­
Bihler 1934/1965 Karl Bihler, Sprachtheorie. Jena 1934. Nachdr. Stutt­
gart 1965.
Caland 1998 Willem Caland, he Satapatha Brahmata in the
K.viya Recension. Ed. [ ... ] by W. Caland. Rev. by Ra­
ghu Vira. Reprint. Delhi 1998.
Cardona 1993 George Cardona, The bhi$ika accentuation system. In:
Stll 18 (1993): 1-40.
Cohen 208 Signe Cohen, Text and Authority in the Older
Upani�ads. Leiden 2008.
Dasgupta 1922 Surendranath Dasgupta, A History of Indian Philoso­
phy. Vol. I. Cambridge 1922.
Delbrick 1888 Berhold Delbrick, Altindische Syntax. [Syntaktische
Forschungen. V.]. Halle 1888.
Della Casa 1976 Carlo Della Casa, Upani�ad. [Classici delle religioni.
29.]. Torino 1976.
Deussen 1887 Paul Deussen, Die Sutra's des Vedanta [ ... ] nebst dem
vollstindigen Commentare des Sankara. Aus dem
Sanskrit ibersezt. Leipzig 1887.
Deussen 1897/ 1921 Paul Deussen, Sehzig Upanishad's des Veda. aus dem
Sanskrit ibers. u. mit Einl. u. m. versehen. Leipzig
1897. 3. Aufl. Leipzig 1921. Nahdr. Darmstadt 1963.
Edgerton 1965 Frn Edgerton, he Beginings of Indian Philoso­
phy. London 1965.
Ehlers 2007 Gerhard Ehlers, Sieben Seher, sieben Wasser. In: Indi­
ca et Tibetica. Festshrift fir Mihael Hahn. Zn 5.
Geburtstag von Freunden und Shilem ibereiht,
hg. v. Konrad Klaus und Jens-Uwe Hann. Wien
2007 [Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhis­
muskunde. 66.]: 145-150.
48 Walter Slaje
Falk 1986 Harry Falk, Vedish upani?ad. In: ZDMG 136, 1 (1986):
80-97.
Frauwallner 1968 Erich Frauwallner, Materialien zur altesten Erkennt­
nislehre der Karmamimaisa. [SB OAW. 259,2. =
VKSKS. 6.]. Wien 1968.
Frauwallner 1992 Erich Frauwallner, Nahgelassene Werke II. Philoso­
phische Texte des Hinduismus. Wien 1992.
Gansten 2005 Martin Gansten, De tidiga upanishadema. Nora 2005.
van Gelder 1957 Jeanette Maria van Gelder, Der Atman in der GroBen­
Wald-Gehenlehre (Brhad-Ara:tyaka-Upani?ad), psy­
hologisch gedeutet. 'S-Gravenhage 1957.
Geidner 1928/2006 K. F. Geidner, Die Weisheit der Upanishaden. Hrsg. ...
v. Axel Mihaels. Minhen 2006. [= Nahdruck von K.
F. Geidner, Vedismus und Brahmanismus. Tibingen
41928].
Goebel-GroB 1962 Erhard Goebel-GroB, Sirr-i akbar. Die persische Upa­
ni?adenlbersezung des Mogulprinzen Dara Sukoh.
Eine Untersuhung der Obersezungsmethode und
Textauswahl nebst Text der Prasna-Upani?ad San­
skrit-Persisch-Deutsch. Marburg 1962.
Goodall 1996 Dominic Goodall, Hindu Scriptures. Ed. with new
translation. London 1996.
Goto 2005 Toshiumi Goto, Yajiavalkya's Characterization of the
Atman and the Four Kinds of Sufering in early Bud­
dhism. In: EJVS 12, 2 (2005): 71-85.
Halbfass 1988 Wilhelm Halbfass, India and Europe. n essay in un­
derstanding. Albany 1988.
Hanefeld 1976 Erhardt Hanefeld, Philosophische Hauptexte der al­
teren Upani?aden. Wiesbaden 1976.
Hanneder 2006 Jurgen Hanneder, Studies on the Mok?opaya. [AKM.
LVIII.]. Wiesbaden 2006.
Hara 2000 Minoru Hara, Two notes on the word upani$ad in the
Maha-bharata. In: n the Understanding of Other Cul­
tures. Ed. by Piotr Balcerowicz & Marek Mejor. Studia
Indologiczne 7 (2000): 157-167.
Harnoto 2006 Kengo Harimoto, The Date of Sankara Between the
Calukyas and the Ra?trakutas. In: Jonal of Indologi­
cal Studies 18 (2006): 85-11 1 .
Neti neti 49
Harmann 1987 Jens-Uwe Hartmann, Das Vaiarhavalstora ds
Maqceta. Hrsg. und ibers. [Sanskrittexte aus den Tr­
fanfunden. XII. = AKWG. Philol.-hist. Kl. 3. Folge, Nr.
160.] . Gottingen 1987.
Harmann 2009 Jens-Uwe Hartmann, Neues zum Va?rhavaa. n:
Pasadikadanai. Festshrit fur Bhikkhu Pa&ka.
Herausgegeben von Martin Straube et l. [Indica et Ti­
betica. 52.]. Marburg 2009: 229-241.
Hertel 1921 Johannes Hertel, Die Weisheit der Upanishaden -
Eine Auswahl aus den altesten Texten. Minhen 1921.
Nachdr. Minchen 2005.
Hertel 1924 Johannes Hertel, M:tiaka-Upani?ad. Kritishe A­
gabe. Leipzig 1924.
Hettrich 1988 Heinrich Hettrich, Untersuhungen zr Hypotaxe n
Vedishen. [Untersuchungen zur indogermanishen
Sprah- und Kulturwissenschaft. 4.]. Berlin 1988.
Hillebrandt 1915 Alfred Hillebrandt, Weitere Bemerkungen zu den
Upani?ads. In: ZDMG 69 (1915): 104-106. [= Kl. r.:
194-196] .
Hillebrandt 1921 Alfred Hillebrandt, Aus Brahmanas und Upa$aden.
Jena 1921.
Hock 2002 Hans Henrich Hok, The Yajiavalkya Cycle in the
Brhadaratyaka Upani?ad. In: JAOS 122, 2 (2002): 278-
286.
Hock 2007 Hans Henrich Hock, n Early Upani?adic Reader.
Delhi 2007.
Hofmann 1975 Karl Homann, Aufsaze zur Indoiranistik. Hrsg. v.
Johanna Narten. Bd 1. Wiesbaden 1975.
Hume 1921 Robert Enest Hume, he Thirteen Principal Upani­
shads. Translated from the Sanskrit. Oxford 1921.
21931.
JB faiminya Brlhma1a of the Samaveda. Crit. ed. by Ra­
ghu Vira and Lokesh Chandra. Nagpur 1954. 2. rev.
ed. Delhi 1986.
Klaus 1993 Konrad Klaus, n the meaning of the root smr in Vedic
literature. In: WZKS 36 (Supplement) 1993: 77-86.
Kupfer 2002 Katharina Kupfer, Die Demonstrativpronomina n
Rigveda. [Europaishe Hohshulschriften. Reihe I
Linguisik. Bd 244.]. Frrt/M. 2002.
50 Walter Slaje
Lindquist 2004 Steven E. Lindquist, Yajtavalkya's Riddle (BAU
3.9.28K). In: Problems in Vedic and Sanskrit Litera­
ture: Ganesh Umakant uite Felicitation Volume. Ed.
Maitreyee Deshpande. Delhi 2004: 192-211 .
L/V V.P. Limaye, R.D. Vadekar, Eighteen Principal
Upani$ads. Poona 1958.
Macdonell 1916 Arthur A. Macdonell, A Vedic Grmmar for Students.
First publ. 1916. Reprint. Delhi 1975.
Maue 1976 Dieter Maue, Brhadaraiyakopani$ad I: Versuch einer
kritishen Ausgabe nah akzentuierten Handshriften
der Ka.va-Rezension mit einer Einleitung und An­
merkungen. Philos. Diss. GieBen 1976.
MS Maitraya1Jl Sa!lhiti. yoted after Delbrick 1888.
Muller 1884 Friedrih Max Muller, The Upanishads. Part I. Oxford
1884.
Oertel 1896 Hns Oertel, The Jaiminiya or Talavakara Upani$ad
Brahmaia. In: JAOS 16 (1896): 79-260.
Oertel 1937 Hanns Oertel, Zn altindishen Ausdrucksverstar­
kungstypus satyasya satyam ,,das Wahre des Wah­
ren" = ,,die yintessenz des Wahren". Minhen 1937.
Oldenberg 1915/ 1991 Hermann Oldenberg, he Doctrine of the Upani$ads
and the Early Buddhism. [= Die Lehre der Upani­
shaden und die Anfange des Buddhismus. Gottingen
1915.] Transl. into English by Shridhar B. Shrotri. Del­
hi 1991.
Olivelle 1998
Patrick Olivelle, he Early Upani$ads. Annotated Text
and Translation. [South Asia Researh.]. New York,
Oxford 1998.
Oltramare 1906 Paul Oltramare, L'histoire des idees theosophiques
dans l'Inde. Paris 1906.
Rau 1959/61 Wilhelm Rau, Bemerkungen zu Sankaras Brhadaraiya­
kopani�adbha�ya. In: Paideuma 7 (1959/61): 293-299.
Rau 1974 Wilhelm Rau, Bemerkungen zu Satkaras Chandogyo-
. pani$adbha�ya. In: Ksi�ga pamiltkowa ku czci Eugeni­
usza Sluszkiewicza: Anantaparai kila sabdasastram ...
Red. Komitet pod przewodnictwem Jana Reyhmana.
Warschau 1974: 191-198.
Roebuck 2000 Valerie J. Roebuk, The Upani�ads. New Delhi 2000.
Roesler 1997 Ulrike Roesler, Liht und Leuhten im �gveda. Swist­
tal-Odendorf 1997.
Neri neti 51
Ruben 1961 Walter Ruben, Beginn der Philosophie in Indien. 3.
unverand. Aufl. Berlin 1961.
SB SatapathabrahmaJa. yoted after Delbrick 1888.
SBh(F) (Sabarabii�ya, partial edition). In: Frauwallner 1968.
Senart 1934 Emile Senart, Brhad-Araiyaka-Upani�ad. Trad. et
ann. Paris 1934.
Slaje 1994a Walter Slaje (1994a}, Vom Mok$opaya-Sastra zum
Yogavasi$tha-Maharamayaia. Philologische Unter­
suchungen zur Entwicklungs- und Dberlieferungs­
geschichte eines indishen Lehrwerks mit Anspruh
auf Heilsrelevanz. [SB OAW. 609. = VKSKS. 27.]. Wien
1994.
Slaje 1994b Walter Slaje (1994b}, Die Angst der Yogis vor der
Versenkung. In: Festschrift fir Gerhard Oberham­
mer. Hrsg. v. Roque Mesquita und Chlodwig Werba.
[WZKS 38 (1994)]: 273-291 .
Slaje 2002 Walter Slaje, Water and Salt (II): A n Analysis and
New Translation of the Yajtavalkya-Maitreyi Dia­
logue. In: IIJ 45 (2002): 205-220.
Slaje 2007 Walter Slaje, Yajnavalkya-brahmalls and the Early
Mimaisa. In: Mimaisa and Vedanta. Interaction and
Continuity. Ed. by J. Bronkhorst. Delhi 2007: 115-158.
Slaje 2009 Walter Slaje, Upanishaden. Arkanum des Veda. Aus
dem Sanskrit ubersezt und hrsg. Frankfurt/M. 2009.
Slaje 2010 Walter Slaje, Sayaia oder Madhava? Verfasserschaft
und Reihenfolge der Sa!lhita-Kommentare aus Vijaya­
nagara. In: ZDMG 160,2 (2010): 383-414.
Speijer 1886 J. S. Speijer, Sanskrit Syntax. With an introduction by
H. Kem. Leyden 1886. Reprint. Delhi 1980.
SS (Sa'lhyasutra). Vijtanabhik$ukrta-bha$ya-sametam.
Pra)eta Ramasaikara Bhattacarya. [Sadilala
Granthamala. 1.] Vara.asi 1977.
StrauB 1928 Otto StrauB, lndische Ethik. In: Jahrbuch der Schopen­
hauer-Gesellschaft 15 (1928): 133-152. [ = l. Sehr.: 284-
303].
TA The Tantraloa of Abhinavagupta with the commen­
tary of Jayaratha. Ed. R. Dvivedi, N. Rastogi. Vol. 3.
Delhi 1987.
Thibaut 1904 George Thibaut, The Vedana-Suras. With he com­
mentary by Sankaracarya. Pt. I. [SBE. 38.]. Oxford 1904.
52 Walter Slaje •
Thieme 1966 Paul hieme, Upanischaden. Ausgewahlte Sticke.
4. Heinz Duchhardt (Hrsg. )
[Reclam Universal-Bibliothek. 8723.]. Stuttgart 1966. Nationale Geschichtskulturen - Bilanz,
Thieme 1968 Paul hieme, adesa. In: Melanges d 'indianisme: a Asstrahlung, Europabezogenheit.
Beitrige des internationalen Symposi­
la memoire de Louis Renou; 40e anniversaire de la
ons in der Akademie der Wissenschaf­
fondation de l 'Insitute de Civilisation Indienne de ten und der Literatur, Mainz, vom
l'Universite de Paris, 1967. Paris 1968: 715-723. [= Kl. 30. September bis 2. Oktober 2004
313 S., € 35,-
Shr. 1 (1984): 259-267].
hieme 1972 Paul Thieme, ,,Sprachmalerei." In: Zeitsehrit fir ver­ 5. Heinz Heinen
Antike m Rande der Steppe.
gleichende Sprachforschung I Kuhns Zeitsehrift 86 Der nordliche Schwarzmeerram
(1972): 64-81. [= Kl. Sehr. 2 (1995): 994-101 1]. als Forschungsaufgabe
s.
Trus Thesaurus lndogermanischer Text- und Sprachmateri­ 91 mit 23 Abb., € 1 7,-
alien. (http: / /titus.fkidgl.uni-frankfurt.de) 6. Ludwig M. Eichinger und Friedhelm Debus
Tubb/Boose 2007 Gary A. Tubb, Emery R. Boose, Sholastic Sanskrit. unter Mitarbeit von Albrecht Plewnia (Hrsg.)
Maritime Kultur und regionale
[Treasury of the lndic Sciences series.] . New York Identititen - Der sidliche Ostseeraum.
2007. Votrige eines Rundgesprichs der
Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft
Upani$atsalgrahab Upani?atsa.grahal. Containing 188 Upani$ads. Ed. unter Beteiligung der Christian­
[ . . . ] by J. L. Shastri. Dilli 1970. Albrechts-Universitit zu Kiel und der
Akademie der Wissenschaften und der
Vacek 1991 Jaroslav Vacek, he term upani$ad in the Early Literatur zu Mainz vom 8. bis 10.
Upani$ads (In the margin of S. Radhakrishnan 's trans­ Febuar 2001
234 S., € 30,-
lation). In: Archiv Orientai 59, 3 (1991): 255-263.
Varahopani$ad Varahopani$ad. In: Upani$atsalgrahab: 603-616. 7. Wolf-Friedrich Schiufele
Wiz 1998 Klaus G. Wiz, he supreme wisdom of the Upani?ads: Der ,,Pessimismus" des Mittelalters
40 S., € 9,-
an introduction. Delhi 1998.
Wizel 2003 Michael Wizel, Yaj.avalkya as ritualist and philoso­ 8. Klaus-Michael Kodalle
Anniheungen an eine Theorie des
pher, and his personal language. In: Paitimana. Essays Verzeihens
in Iranian, Indo-European, and Indian Studies in Hon­ 96 S., € 17,-
or of Hns-Peter Schmidt. Ed. by Siamak Adhami.
Vol. I: Indo-European and Indian Studies. Costa Mesa Jahrgang 2007
1. Klaus-Michael Kodalle (Hrsg.)
2003: 103-143. Geisteswissenschaften - im Gegen­
wind des Zeitgeistes? Zum AbschluB
des Historischen Woterbuchs der
Philosophie
77 S . , € 16,-
2. Johannes Meier
,,Totus mundus nostra fit habitatio".
Jesuiten aus dem deutschen Sprach­
ram in Potugiesisch- und Spanisch­
Amerika
36 S. mit 7 z.T. farbigen Abb . , € 8,-
3. Cornelius Mayer/Andreas E. J. Grote/Christof
Muller (Hrsg.)
Gnade - Freiheit - Rechtfetigung.
Augustinische Topoi und ihre
Wirkungsgeschichte. lntenationales
Kolloquim zum 1650. Gebutstag
Augustins vom 25. bis 27. November
2004 im Erbacher Hof zu Mainz
153 S . , € 22,-
4. Helwig Schmidt-Glintzer
Sinologie und das Interesse an China
64 S., € 15,-
5. Michaela Wittinger
Europiische Staaten oder Wo endet
Europa?
20 S . , € 7,-
Jahrgang 2008
1. Ernst Osterkamp
Einsamkeit. Ober ein Problem in Leben
und Werk des spiten Goethe
20 S . , € 6,-
2. Gabriele Buscneier, Ulrich Komad und
Albrecht Rietniiller (Hrsg.)
Transkription und Fassung in der
Musik des 20. Jahrhundets. Beitrage
des Kolloquiums in der Akademie der
Wissenschaften und der Literatur,
Mainz, vom 5. bis 6. Marz 2004
21 0 S. mit 43 Abb., € 28,-
3. Ernst Heitsch
Erzihlung und Theologie in der Ilias.
Eine Skizze
22 S., € 6,-