We are glad to say that Professor Max Muller has cleared the ground before us, of many misconceptions and fallacies which were entertained about this Upanishat. He meets in his own way the arguments adduced to show that this is a modern Upanishat and that it is a sectarian Upanishat, an Upanishat of the Sankhya and of Bhakti school and so on, and his conclusions are that "no real argument has ever been brought forward to invalidate the tradition which represents it as belonging to the Taittiriya or Black Yajur Veda," and he points out that it "holds a very high rank among Upanishats" and that its real drift is the same as the Doctrine of the Vedanta Philosophy.

Professor Garbe and Macdonnell however, in their recent works,* speak of this as a Sivite compilation, and the latter scholar refers to the Upanishat itself ascribing the authorship to a sage called SvetaSvatara, unlike other Upanishats. But this is not characteristic of this Upanishat alone. The fifteenth khanda of the last Prapathaka of Chhandogya Upanishat also traces the line of teachers in a similar way and there is a similar statement in the Mandukya Upanishat and others. When each Hymn of the Rig Veda has its own author, it cannot be any surprise that each particular Upanishat should have an individual author; and we don't suppose the Professor inclines to the orthodox view that the Veda and the Upanishats had no human authors, and were revealed.

*Garbe's Philosophy of Ancient India (1897) and Macdonnell's History of Sanskrit Literature (1900).

In regard to the other and deep-rooted fallacy about its being a sectarian Upanishat, we shall speak here atlength.

By taking this objection they mean to imply also that it is modern. And curiously enough we read of scholars ascribing dates for the rise of these sects commencing from the tenth and twelfth centuries. Sir W. W. Hunter seriously con-tends that Sankara was the great Apostle of Saivism. But these writers do not see that the History of Hindu Religion is as ancient as the History of the Hindu Philosophy, and that the people must have had a popular religion, even, in the very days, these Upanishats were composed, and that the Puranas which embodied the essence of the Upanishat teaching existed in a popular form even in those ancient days, and the words Itihasa, Purana, occur even in the oldest Upanishats.* These Upanishats are quoted by name in the Puranas and particular passages are also commented on.

And it will be an interesting study as to what was the religion of the people in the days of the Upanishats and Maha-bharata and Ramayana and of the Puranas, and to compare the same with the existing phases of Hindu Religion. We may briefly indicate our own conclusions on the subject, though we could not give our reasons in detail - to wit - that so far as any room for comparisons exist, - the traditions and beliefs and ceremonials and faith of the modern day Saivas (among whom may be included all Saktas, Ganapatyas and Smartas), who form now the bulk of the Hindu Race, were exactly the same as those of the people of the days of the oldest Upanishats and Mahabharata and Ramayana. According to the opinions of many old scholars like Lassen, Wilson and Muir and others, the worship of Siva represented the cult of the Higher castes, Brahmans and Kshatriyas, and a text of Manu mentions that Siva is the God of the Brahmans, and it is remarkable how the picture of Siva is exactly the same as that of any ancient

* Brihadaranyaka-Up. 2-4-10 and 4-1-2 Maittnya-Up. 6-32 and 33, Chhandogya-Up. VII. 1-2.

Rishi (vide some of Ravi Varma's pictures). Dr. W. W. Hunter remarks that Sankara in espousing Saivism combined in the system the highest Philosophy of the ancients and the most popular form of Religion.

Regarding the conception of Siva and its growth from Vedic times, scholars love to tell us that Rudra was nowhere called Siva in the Rig Veda and that he merely represented the storm God, with his thunder, lightning and the rains, rushing down from the snow-capped hills ; and that this Rudra slowly grew into Siva of the Hindu Triad, and scholars have not failed to remark about His composite and contradictory aspects.

There'is considerable truth in this, and we can clearly trace that in His person is slowly built up the conception of the various Vedic Deities, Indra and Agni, Varuna and Vayu, Surya and Soma, Vishnu and Brahma, and by the time the Vedas were arranged into Rig, Yajur, Saman and Atharvan, Rudra's position as the God of gods had become assured; and by the time of the earliest Upanishats, when the purely sacrificial Yajnas were being given up, the worship of Rudra-Siva supplanted the worship of the Vedic Deities, and instead of a blind worship of the elements, a marked distinction was drawn between the Supreme God who dwelt in these elements and gave them special power and glory, and this conception was stereotyped later on by Siva being called the Ashtamurti, the God who had for his body, the five elements, earth, air, water, fire and akas, sun and moon and the soul; and Siva has temples dedicated to him, in which He is worshipped in these eight forms.

Rudra is derived by Sayana from the roots, Rudravayita, meaning 'he who drives away sorrow.' And consistant with this derivation, Rudra is called in the Rig-Veda itself, as the 'bountiful' and the 'Healer' possessed of various remedies (the later Vaidyanath) 'benign' and 'gracious'. And the term Siva clearly appears in the following text of the Rig Veda (X. 92-9).

"Stomanva adya Rudraya sikvase kshyadviraya namasa didhi-shtana yebhih Sivah svavan eva yavabhirdivah sikshati sva-yasah nikamabhi."*

Those who are conversant with the actual performing of yajnas will know how the place of the respective priests, Adhvaryu, Hotri, and Udgatri and Brahman are fixed as well as the place of the various gods. And the chief place is assigned to Rudra and apart from other gods. This will clearly explain the force of the epithet of "Medhapatim" in Rig Veda, 1-43-4 "Gadhapatim, Medhapatim Rudram Jale-shabheshajam, tat samyoh sumnam imehi." (We seek from Rudra, the lord of songs, the lord of Sacrifices who possesses healing remedies, his auspicious favour), as also "king of sacrifices" (Rig. 4-3). And Medhapati is the same word as the more popular word Pasupati, Pasu meaning the animal offered in sacrifice, Yajna-Pasu, and symbolically representing the bound soul-jiva. As the Pati of all sacrifices, He is the fulfiller of sacrifices, 'Yajna sadham ' (Rig. I. 114-4) and 'Rudram yajnanam sa dadhishtim apasam' (III. 2-5). As the God of gods, He is said to "derive His renown from Himself" 'Rudraya Svayasase' His glory is said to be inherent, independent or self-dependant 'Svadhavane' (Rig. VII. 46-1). He is also called Svapivata, which is variously explained as meaning 'readily understanding' 'accessible.' 'gracious,' 'he by whom life is conquered, 'he whose command cannot be transgressed,' 'thou by whom prayers (words) are readily received.' He is called the father of the worlds,' Bhuvanasya Pitaram,' VI. 49-10, and the Rich story of His becoming the Father of the fatherless Maruts can be recalled in many a Puranic story, and local legend, and common folklore.