[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [General history and culture](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general) › [Ancient Indian Historical Tradition](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922) › c32 # Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c32: Chapter XXVII. The Vedic Schools and Teachers and the Brāhmaṇas Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c32 - **Language:** English ### Chapter XXVII. The Vedic Schools and Teachers and the Brāhmaṇas ### [c32.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.2) Though the Puranas say very little about secular history after the Bhārata battle, yet the Puranic brahmans incorporated notices of the Vedic schools and later teachers. The development of those schools among Vyāsa's disciples is described best in the Vāyu and Brahmāṇḍa, less fully in the Viṣṇu, and the Bhāgavata has copied less clearly and intelligently.⁴ Many of the teachers named⁵ are alluded to in Vedic literature, but their assignment in those several schools does not, I believe, always tally with their assignment in that literature; yet there may be truth in both, since teachers were no doubt masters of more than one Veda. The account in the first two Puranas mentioned was obviously drawn up and added by the Puranic brahmans themselves, and deserves attention, because they had knowledge of those schools, and because the account was endorsed by the brahmanic Viṣṇu and again by the still more brahmanic Bhāgavata.¹ As I have not studied Vedic literature closely, I cannot venture to discuss intricacies, and so merely set out the account briefly here with a few comments. Care must be taken not to confuse different persons of the same name, for the account shows there were many such; thus, as will appear, there were two Sumantus and several Yājñavalkyas, and the Jaimini who taught Pauspiṇḍya was great grandson of Vyāsa’s disciple Jaimini.² ### [c32.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.3) ⁴ Cf. Kūr i, 52, 17-18; Vā 1, 180; 61, 73-7; Bḍ ii, 35, 83-6. ### [c32.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.4) ⁵ Also in Bḍ ii, 33, 3-17 (not in Vā): Kūr i, 53, 5-25 : Lg i, 7, 14-52; 24, 11-132 : but the lists are jumbled. There is much variation in many of the lesser names, and Vā is generally followed when they are uncertain. ### [c32.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.5) ¹ Weber, Hist. of Ind. Lit., p. 142, note, refers to the Viṣ and Vā accounts, but doubts their trustworthiness—gratuitously. ### [c32.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.6) ² They are treated as one, Weber, op cit., p. 240, note \*. ### [c32.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.7) Rigveda.³ Paila made two versions and gave them to his disciples, one to Indrapramati⁴ and the other to Vāṣkala. Vāṣkala made four saṃhitās of his version and gave them severally to his four disciples, Bodhya, Agnimāṭhara, Parāśara⁵ and Yājñavalkya. Indrapramati taught his version to Māṇḍūkeya; he taught it to his son Satyaśravas; he to Satyahita; and he to his son Satyaśrī. Satyaśrī had three great disciples, Devamitra Śakalya, Rathītara Śakapūrṇa⁶ and Vāṣkali Bharadvāja; and they established śākhās. Śakalya made five saṃhitās and taught them to his five disciples, Mudgala, Golaka, Khālīya, Vatsa and Śaiśireya. He was very conceited.⁷ King ‘Janaka’ of Videha performed a horse-sacrifice and a great concourse of rishis attended it. He offered great wealth (including slaves⁸) to whoever should be the greatest among them, so they challenged one another to discussion. Yājñavalkya, son of Brahmavāha, vanquished them all with his questions, and then challenged Śakalya with the penalty that whichever failed should forfeit his life. He answered all Śākalya’s questions, but Śākalya could not answer his single question and so perished.¹ Yājñavalkya then carried off the prize.² Śakapūrṇa Rathītara made three saṃhitās and also a nirukta. He had four disciples, Ketava, Dālaki,³ Śatabalāka and Naigama.⁴ Vāṣkali Bharadvāja made three saṃhitās, and had three disciples, Nandāyanīya, Pannagāri and Aryava. ### [c32.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.8) ³ Vā 60, 24–32, 63–6; 61, 1–4. Bḍ ii, 34, 24–33; 35, 1–7. Viṣ iii, 4, 16–26. Ag 150, 25–6; 258 (a disquisition); 270, 2–3. Bhāg xii, 6, 53–60. ### [c32.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.9) ⁴ To be distinguished from the earlier Indrapramati, p. 214. ### [c32.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.10) ⁵ To be distinguished from earlier Parāśaras, p. 213. ### [c32.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.11) ⁶ Śakapūṇi. Weber, op. cit., p. 85. ### [c32.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.12) ⁷ Jñānāhaṅkāra-garvita; hence called Vidagdha, Weber, pp. 33, 129: Vedic Index ii, 296. Cf. MBh xiii, 14, 689–92? ### [c32.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.13) ⁸ Videha slaves, Vedic Index, ii, 212. ### [c32.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.14) ¹ Vā 60, 32-62, Bḍ ii, 34, 33-68. Referred to, MBh xiii, 14, 689 ? Vā adds—Śākalya’s disciples on his death incurred the guilt of brahmanicide, but went to Bāḍāditya tīrtha at Pavanapura and were purified (60, 67-75 and 59, 108-30). ### [c32.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.15) ² This might explain the name Vājasani of a Yājñavalkya (Weber, p. 104), except that the name Vājasaneya appears to have arisen earlier; see infra under Yajurveda. ### [c32.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.16) ³ Here Vā (60, 65-6; 61, 1) has apparently confused the text and inserted six names wrongly. ### [c32.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.17) ⁴ Viṣ says, the fourth disciple made a nirukta. ### [c32.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.18) Yajurveda.⁵ Vaiśampāyana made 86 saṃhitās (27, Viṣṇu) and all his disciples received them except Yājñavalkya, who was discarded because of his presumption. Those 86 disciples fashioned saṃhitās, and comprised three groups distinguished geographically, the northern, the madhyadeśya and the eastern, the chiefs of which were respectively Śyāmāyani, Āsuri and Ālambi. They were all called Carakas and Carakādhvaryus, and (says the Viṣṇu) Taittirīyas. Yājñavalkya, called Brahmarāti,⁶ fashioned independently separate yajuses,⁷ and had 15 disciples, Kaṇva, Madhyamdina, &c. (names given): they were called Vājins. So there were 101 recensions altogether. ### [c32.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.19) ⁵ Vā 61, 5-10, 23-6. Bḍ ii, 35, 8-13, 26-30. Viṣ iii, 5, 1-2, 12-13. Ag 150, 27-8; 259 (a disquisition); 270, 3-5. Bhāg xii, 6, 61-74. ### [c32.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.20) ⁶ Viṣ says, son of Brahmarāta : Bhāg, son of Devarāta. ### [c32.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.21) ⁷ Called āyatayāma, which Vaiśampāyana did not know; so Viṣ. Bhāg copied this. ### [c32.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.22) All these occurrences and names are explained in a story,⁸ which consists largely of fable and grew out of a misunderstanding of names. It says (among other things) that Yājñavalkya Brahmarāti when discarded had to disgorge the yajuses he had learnt from Vaiśampāyana, and the other disciples picked them up; that he then worshipped the sun and obtained his own special yajuses from the sun; and that the name Vājin arose because he was aśva-rūpa. Now vājin can be synonymous with vāja-sani, the name of a Yājñavalkya; this Yājñavalkya was (either Vājasanī or) Vājasaneya; hence his disciples, the Vājasaneyas of the White Yajus, were called shortly Vājins: but vājin was misunderstood as a ‘horse’, and so he is styled aśvarūpa.¹ Similarly, Tittiri was apparently the chief of the disciples of the Black Yajus,² and his followers were the Taittirīyas. ### [c32.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.23) ⁸ Vā 61, 11-23. Bḍ ii, 35, 14-26. Viṣ iii, 5, 3-28, embellishing. ### [c32.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.24) ¹ Viṣ, misunderstanding, makes the sun appear aśvarūpa. Bhāg copied. ### [c32.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.25) ² Weber, pp. 41, 87, 90-1. Viṣ, misunderstanding, turned him and the other disciples into partridges; and so also Bhāg. Tittiri was a name, see p. 105. ### [c32.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.26) This Yājñavalkya as Vaiśampāyana’s disciple would have been prior to Janamejaya III, and his teaching appears to have been adopted by that king, for, it is said, Janamejaya established the Vājasaneyaka school in disregard of a Vaiśampāyana and in spite of his curse, but ultimately abdicated.³ In other respects this account of the Yajurveda, and especially the Black Yajus, appears from its brevity and indefiniteness and the large number of disciples and recensions to have contracted the succession of teachers; and the three leaders of the Taittirīyas, Śyāmāyani, Āsuri and Ālambi, should be placed soon after Adhisīmakṛṣṇa’s time, if this Āsuri is the same as Pañcaśikha’s teacher (see infra). ### [c32.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.27) ³ Mat 50, 57-65. Vā 99, 250-6. This Vaiśampāyana can hardly have been Vyāsa’s disciple, chronologically. He may have been the Vaiśampāyana of the MBh (i, 60, 2227 f.); but there he has been confused with Vyāsa’s disciple, and so Vyāsa and the earlier Vaiśampāyana have been wrongly introduced. ### [c32.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.28) Sāmaveda.⁴ Jaimini taught this to his son Sumantu, he to his son Sutvan, and he to his son Sukarman. Sukarman Jaimini made a thousand saṃhitās of it.⁵ He had two famous disciples, Pauṣyañji or Pauṣpiñji⁶ and Hiraṇyanābha Kausalya. Pauṣpiñji made 500 saṃhitās and taught them to his four disciples, who were called the ‘northern sāman chanters’. Hiraṇyanābha made 500 also (15, Viṣṇu) and taught them to his disciples, who were called the ‘eastern sāman chanters’. Pauṣpiñji’s disciples were Laugākṣi (or Lokākṣi), Kuthumi, Kuśītin and Lāṅgali. Laugākṣi had five disciples, and their schools were those of Rāṇāyanīya, Taṇḍiputra, &c. (names given). Kuthumi had his three sons as his disciples, Aurasa, Parāśara¹ and Bhāgavitti, and these Kauthumas formed three sections. Śauridyu and Śṛṅgiputra were apparently disciples of Aurasa or Bhāgavitti,² and Śṛṅgiputra declared three saṃhitās, those of Caila, Prācīnayoga and Surāla. Pārāśarya Kauthuma declared six saṃhitās, those of Āsurāyaṇa, a Patañjali, &c. (names given). Lāṅgali and Śālihotra³ each declared six saṃhitās. Lāṅgali’s six disciples were Bhāluki, Jaimini, Lomagāyani, &c. (names given); and they promulgated saṃhitās. ### [c32.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.29) ⁴ Vā 61, 27-47. Bḍ ii, 35, 31-55. Partially, Viṣ iii, 6, 1-8: Bhāg xii, 6, 75-80: Ag 150, 28-9; 260 (a disquisition); 270, 6-8. ### [c32.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.30) ⁵ Here Vā and Bḍ tell a fable about him and Indra. ### [c32.31](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.31) ⁶ Pauṣyañji (Vā, Bḍ) is a misreading of Pauṣpiñji (Viṣ), i.e. Pauṣpiṇḍya; Vedic Index, ii, 27. ### [c32.32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.32) ¹ To be distinguished from other Parāśaras, p. 213. ² The text is defective. ³ Śālihotra may = Kusītin, but Bḍ makes him = Lāṅgali. ⁴ Vā and Bḍ misread this as Krānta (p. 173). ⁵ Vā 61, 49–55. Bḍ ii, 35, 55–62. Viṣ iii, 6, 9–15. Ag 150, 30; 261 (a disquisition); 270, 8–9. Bhāg xii, 7, 1–4. ⁶ Jājali in Hv 142, 7999 (if genuine) was much earlier. ⁷ Their formation, ten functions (vidhi), &c.; Bḍ ii, 33, 47–58: Vā (incompletely) 59, 130, 132–41. Their declarers are styled ṛṣi-putrakas. Bḍ ii, 33, 1. ### [c32.33](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.33) Hiraṇyanābha Kausalya’s disciple was prince Kṛta. He made 24 saṃhitās, and declared them to his disciples, Rāḍa, Gautama, Parāśara, &c. (names given); and they were the Kārta⁴ sāman chanters. Pauṣpiñji and Kṛta were the most famous of all sāman chanters. This statement about Hiraṇyanābha, Kṛta and his disciples is wrongly introduced here, for they belonged to a much earlier period (p. 173): it has been inserted in order to bring them into the scheme of Vedic schools derived from Vyāsa. ### [c32.34](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.34) \*Atharvaveda.\*⁵ Sumantu divided it into two and taught it to Kabandha. Kabandha divided it into two again and gave one part to Pathya and the other to Devadarśa (or Vedasparśa). The latter made four versions and taught them to his four disciples, Moda, Brahmabala, Pippalāda and Śaulkāyani. The Pathyas had three divisions, those of Jājali,⁶ Kumudādi and a ‘Śaunaka’. ‘Śaunaka’ made two saṃhitās, and gave one to Babhru and the other to Saindhavāyana. Saindhava gave that to Muñjakeśa and it was again made into two. The best vikalpanas of the saṃhitās are the Nakṣatrakalpa, Vaitāna, Saṃhitāvidhi, Aṅgiras’s kalpa and Śāntikalpa. ### [c32.35](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.35) This account of the Vedic schools has brought them well into the Brāhmaṇa period, and the chronology of that period may be considered. The great Brāhmaṇas⁷ were composed in the country of the Kurus or allied Kuru-Pañcālas,¹ hence the fusion of those two peoples is important, which occurred more than a century after the Bhārata battle or about 820 B.C. (p. 285). ### [c32.36](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.36) ¹ Vedic Index, i. 165. ### [c32.37](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.37) The Pañcaviṃśa and Taittirīya Brāhmaṇas are the most archaic of the regular Brāhmaṇas.² The Pañcaviṃśa, though its home apparently lay farther east, yet contains a minute description of sacrifices performed on the rivers Sarasvatī and Dṛṣadvatī, and has no allusion to the Kuru-Pañcālas; hence it was apparently composed before the blending,³ and while the Kurus still reigned at Hastināpura and over Kurukṣetra (say) about 830 B.C. The Taittirīya refers to the united Kuru-Pañcālas,⁴ and was therefore composed after the fusion, (say) soon after 800 B.C. ‘A more recent group is formed by the Jaiminīya, the Kauṣītaki and the Aitareya Brāhmaṇas. The first of these is probably the oldest, while the third seems, on linguistic grounds at least, to be the latest of the three.’ The Śatapatha is posterior to these. Latest of all are the Gopatha Brāhmaṇa and the short Brāhmaṇas of the Sāmaveda.⁵ All these would be posterior to the fusion of the Kurus and Pañcālas, and so the Jaiminīya refers repeatedly to the Kuru-Pañcālas, and they are mentioned in the Śatapatha and Gopatha.⁶ The Brāhmaṇa period ended apparently before or about 600 B.C.;⁷ hence the Śatapatha may be placed somewhat before that date, and it will probably not be far wrong to put the Jaiminīya, the Kauṣītaki and the Aitareya about half-way between the Taittirīya and the Śatapatha, in the last quarter of the eighth century and the first quarter of the seventh, the Jaiminīya first and the Aitareya third. ### [c32.38](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.38) ² Macdonell, Sansk. Lit., p. 203. ### [c32.39](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.39) ³ Id., p. 210. Weber, Hist. of Ind. Lit., pp. 67-8. ### [c32.40](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.40) ⁴ Vedic Index, i, 165. ### [c32.41](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.41) ⁵ Macdonell, Sansk. Lit., p. 203. ### [c32.42](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.42) ⁶ The Kuru-Pañcāla dynasty ended about 400 B.C. (p. 180). ### [c32.43](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.43) ⁷ Macdonell, Sansk. Lit., pp. 50, 215. Winternitz, in his Geschichte der Indischen Litteratur (i, p. 25) makes the landmark the rise of Buddhism, which practically agrees. ### [c32.44](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.44) By the end of the seventh century B.C., the original Puranas had been compiled as shown in chapter IV, and the old traditions became known to a certain extent to the recluse brahmans who composed the Brāhmaṇas (pp. 10, 63): hence the Śatapatha notices much legend, though seemingly with doubtful success.⁸ The fact that the Brāhmaṇas make no reference to the Pāṇḍavas or the Bhārata battle has been explained;¹ and the reason why the Bharatas are not mentioned in the geographical lists of the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, in Manu, or in the Buddhist texts,² is simply that the term Bhārata had become too wide for particular use, as noticed in p. 293. The futility of expecting to find secular history in the Brāhmaṇas, which are purely priestly literature, is emphasized by the fact that they take very little notice even of contemporary kings. ### [c32.45](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.45) ⁸ e. g. its story of Gotama Rāhūgaṇa, pp. 224, 311. ### [c32.46](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.46) ¹ P. 283. See also Macdonell, Sansk. Lit., p. 216. ### [c32.47](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.47) ² Vedic Index, ii, p. 96. ### [c32.48](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.48) The foregoing succession of teachers of the Vedic schools during the Brāhmaṇa period may be supplemented by notices of various brahmans who were contemporary. Many are mentioned in Vedic literature and in the Mahābhārata and Puranas, but generally in brahmanic statements without definite historical connexions:³ yet here may be noticed certain of them on whom light can be thrown so as to suggest their mutual, and approximately real, positions. ### [c32.49](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.49) ³ MBh i, 53, 2044-50 is a brahmanical jumble. ### [c32.50](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.50) A near relative probably of the Pāṇḍavas’ purohita Dhaumya was Āyoda Dhaumya, who lived in the time of their successor Parikṣit II and his son Janamejaya III.⁴ He had three disciples, Upamanyu, Āruṇi Uddālaka Pāñcālya and Veda. Veda became Janamejaya’s purohita.⁵ Uddālaka⁶ was son of Aruṇa Aupaveśi Gautama. Aruṇa had learnt of Upaveśa and of Aśvapati⁷ prince of the Kekayas, who instructed also Prācīnaśāla Aupamanyava. Uddālaka learnt also of Patañcala Kāpya (p. 250). He was contemporary with Svaidāyana Śaunaka and Śauceya Prācīnayogya,⁸ and he or his son Auddālaka were contemporary with that Prācīnaśāla, four other brahmans and Aśvapati.¹ Uddālaka had a son begotten of his wife by a disciple at his request, Śvetaketu Auddālaki Āruṇeya.² He had a favourite disciple Kahoḍa (Kauṣītaki ³) and gave him his daughter Sujātā in marriage, and their son was Aṣṭāvakra. Kahoḍa was vanquished by Vandin in a controversy before king ‘Janaka’ and was drowned. Śvetaketu and Aṣṭāvakra, uncle and nephew, were of the same age and were brought up in Uddālaka’s hermitage. When Aṣṭāvakra learnt of his father’s fate, they both went to Janaka Ugrasena Puṣkaramālin and overcame Vandin.⁴ Contemporary with Śvetaketu were the Pañcāla king Pravāhaṇa Jaivala ⁵ and Jala Jātūkarṇya.⁶ ### [c32.51](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.51) ⁴ Dhaumya was a Kāśyapa (p. 233). So Aitar Brāhm (vii, 5, 27) says the Kāśyapas were Janamejaya’s hereditary priests. ### [c32.52](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.52) ⁵ MBh i, 3, 673-97, 740-6; 53, 2047. Weber, Hist. of Ind. Lit., p. 71. An Āruṇi, Var 37, 7. ### [c32.53](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.53) ⁶ He was an Āṅgirasa, Mat 196, 4, 6, 8. He must be distinguished from Uddāla or Uddālaki, an Ātreya (Mat 197, 2), whose son was Naciketas, called also Nāciketa. They appear in brahmanical fables; MBh xiii, 17, 1291-2; 71, 3486-7: Var 193, 12 f. Vedic Index i, pp. 88-9, 432. Katha Upaniṣad i, 1, 1 and 11; ii, 4, 5 apparently identifies them. ### [c32.54](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.54) ⁷ There were more than one Aśvapati, see p. 164, and Mat 208, 5. ### [c32.55](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.55) ⁸ Śatapatha Brāhm xi, 4, 1-9; 5, 3. ### [c32.56](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.56) ¹ Chāndogya Up. v, 11–17. ### [c32.57](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.57) ² MBh i, 122, 4724, 4735 : iii, 132, 10599 : xii, 34, 1229 : xiii, 165, 7671. Weber, pp. 71, 137. Called by abridgement, ‘ son of Gautama,’ SBE i, pp. 76–7 ; Vedic Index ii, p. 409. Mentioned, MBh ix, 39, 2207–9. ### [c32.58](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.58) ³ Vedic Index, i, p. 145. ### [c32.59](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.59) ⁴ MBh iii, 132, 10599 to 134, 10690. Rām vi, 121, 16. Fables about Aṣṭāvakra, MBh xiii, 19, 1390 f. ; Br 212, 72 f. ### [c32.60](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.60) ⁵ Chāndogya Up. v, 3, 1. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Up. vi, 2, 1. ### [c32.61](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.61) ⁶ Vedic Index ii, p. 409. ### [c32.62](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.62) It is said Śvetaketu, who was reckoned a rishi,⁷ established strict monogamy for women, in relation to brahman women.⁸ It is amazing that such a story should have been fabricated and preserved, if not true; and if true, it would indicate that laxity among brahmans (which various stories suggest in early times) did not disappear till some time later than the Bhārata battle.⁹ ### [c32.63](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.63) ⁷ Āpastamba i, 2, 5, 4–6. ### [c32.64](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.64) ⁸ MBh i, 122, 4724–35. Yet the same is attributed far earlier to Dīrghatamas, 104, 4202–3. Both possibly true. ### [c32.65](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.65) ⁹ Cf. the story of Jabālā and her son Satyakāma, who were later (infra); Chāndogya Up. iv, 4, 1–2. Cf. Vedic Index i, 273, 479–80; ii, 84, 259. As regards polyandry, MBh i, 195, 7244 to 196, 7271. Was the description of a brahman by adding putra to his mother’s name (a practice that prevailed about this period) due to such laxity? Weber, Hist. of Ind. Lit., pp. 71, 131 : where Kṛṣṇa Devakīputra, the scholar, is plainly different from Kṛṣṇa the king; so Vedic Index, i, p. 184. Kṛṣṇa was a very common name, and Devaka (and therefore the feminine Devakī) an ordinary name. ### [c32.66](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.66) Uddālaka had as pupils Yājñavalkya Vājasaneya ¹⁰ and Proti Kausurubindi. The Vājasaneya school was established in or by Janamejaya III’s time (p. 324). Yājñavalkya had Āsuri as pupil.¹ Āsuri's first disciple was Pañcaśikha, who was of Parāśara's gotra, was a bhikṣu,² and was called Kāpileya (it is said) after his foster-mother Kapilā and shortly Kapila by the Sāṅkhyas.³ He went to Janaka Janadeva, king of Mithilā, and the king gave up his hundred teachers and followed Pañcaśikha, who taught him mokṣa according to the Sāṅkhya;⁴ and Janaka Dharmadhvaja also was his disciple.⁵ Two stages below Āsuri was Āsurāyaṇa, with whom Yāska was contemporary.⁶ This Yājñavalkya also taught Madhuka Paingya, he taught Cūḍa Bhāgavitti, he Jānaki Āyasthūṇa, and he Satyakāma Jābāla.⁷ ### [c32.67](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.67) ¹⁰ Bhāg ix, 22, 38, if correct, would refer to an earlier Yājñavalkya. There were many Yājñavalkyas (p. 237). ### [c32.68](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.68) ¹ Weber, \*op. cit.\*, pp. 128, 131, 235–6. \*Vedic Index\* i, 72. ### [c32.69](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.69) ² MBh xii, 322, 11875. ### [c32.70](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.70) ³ Cf. Mat 3, 29. He is confused with the mythical Kapila, MBh vi, 34, 1230: xii, 342, 13078–9; 341, 12932; 344, 13254; 351, 13703: iii, 220, 14197: Mat 171, 1–4: story of Sagara's sons (p. 271): Pad ii, 75, 2—and so called cira-jīvin, MBh xii, 218, 7890. ### [c32.71](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.71) ⁴ MBh xii, 218, 7883–7900; 219, 7930–4. Fable, 269, 9600–4. ### [c32.72](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.72) ⁵ MBh xii, 322, 11855, 11875 with 321, 11839–40. ### [c32.73](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.73) ⁶ Weber, pp. 128, 235–6. \*Vedic Index\* i, 72. ### [c32.74](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.74) ⁷ Weber, pp. 130, 134. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Up. vi, 3, 7–11. ### [c32.75](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.75) In a chronological succession of teachers are named (downwards)—Upaveśi, Aruṇa, Uddālaka, Yājñavalkya, Āsuri and Āsurāyaṇa:⁸ and Voḍhu (or Voḍha), Kapila, Āsuri and Pañcaśikha are mentioned as connected teachers,⁹ treating Kapila and Pañcaśikha as distinct. ### [c32.76](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.76) ⁸ Bṛhadāraṇyaka Up. vi, 5, 2–3. ### [c32.77](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.77) ⁹ Vā 101, 338. Bḍ iv, 2, 273–4. Mat 102, 18 and Kūr i, 53, 15 (both placing Voḍhu third). Cf. Vā 23, 141: Lg i, 7, 41: 24, 41: MBh xii, 320, 11783–4 (which all omit Voḍhu). ### [c32.78](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.78) These particulars yield something like a chronological scheme, and all the more important of these teachers¹⁰ are shown in the following table, which is in continuation of those on pages 148–9 and 192. It starts with teachers contemporary with the Pāṇḍavas, Parikṣit II and Janamejaya III, and nearly all the persons in the first four columns are connected by synchronisms. There are few synchronisms touching the teachers in columns 5–8, yet something may be done to estimate their positions, for the notice of some of them in the Brāhmaṇas would no doubt warrant the inference that such a person flourished well before the Brāhmaṇa which mentions him, at least a quarter of a century prior. The steps are ### [c32.79](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.79) ¹⁰ Cf. Bḍ ii, 33, 1–17; which is wanting in Vā. For the references for the following statements see \*Vedic Index\* generally. The dates of the Brāhmaṇas are those suggested above. ### [c32.80](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.80) | | Kuru-Pauravas | Janakas of Videha | Other kings | Various teachers | | 92 | Vicitravīrya | Dhṛti | ... ... | Kṛṣṇa-Dvaipāyana-Vyāsa | | 93 | Dhṛtarāṣṭra | Bahulāśva | ... ... | Śuka | | 94 | Pāṇḍavas | Kṛtakṣaṇa | ... ... | Bhūriśravas, &c. (p. 214) | | 95 | Abhimanyu | ... ... ... | ... ... | Upaveśa | | 96 | Parikṣit II | ... ... ... | Aśvapati of Kekaya | Āyoda, Patañcala, Aruṇa, Prācīnaśāla | | 97 | Janamejaya III | ... ... ... | ... ... | Uddālaka, Veda, ‘Upamanyu,’ Svaidāyana, Prācīna-yogya | | 98 | Śatānīka | Janaka-Ugrasena | ... ... | Kahoḍa, Vandin, Yājñavalkya-Vājasaneya | | 99 | Aśvamedhadatta | ... ... ... | Pravāhaṇa of Pañcāla | Śvetaketu, Aṣṭāvakra | | 100 | Adhisīmakṛṣṇa | ... ... | ... ... | Yājñavalkya (son of Brahmavāha) | | a | ... ... ... | ... ... | ... ... | Āsuri, Madhuka | | b | ... ... | Janaka-Janadeva | ... ... | Pañcaśikha | | c | ... ... ... | Janaka-Dharmadhvaja | ... ... | Cūḍa-Bhāgavitti | | d | ... ... ... | ... ... ... | ... ... | Asurāyaṇa, Yāska | | e | ... ... | Jānaki-Āyasthūṇa | ... ... | ... ... | | f | ... ... | ... ... | ... ... | Satyakāma-Jābāla | ### [c32.81](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.81) | Of Rigveda | Of Yajurveda | Of Sāmaveda | Of Atharvaveda | | | ... ... ... | ... ... ... | ... ... ... | ... ... ... | 92 | | ... ... ... | ... ... ... | ... ... ... | ... ... ... | 93 | | Paila | Vaiśampāyana | Jaimini | Sumantu | 94 | | Indrapramati, Vāṣkala | ... ... ... | Sumantu-Jaimini | Kabandha | 95 | | Bodhya, ‘Yājñavalkya,’ Parāśara, Māṇḍūkeya | Yājñavalkya-Brahmarāti | Sutvan-Jaimini | Pathya, Devadarśa | 96 | | Satyaśravas | Tittiri | Sukarman-Jaimini | Pippalāda, &c. | 97 | | Satyahita | ... ... ... | Pauṣpiṇḍya | Jājali, Śaunaka | 98 | | Satyaśrī | Madhyamdina, Kaṇva, & . | Laugākṣi, Kuthumi, Kuśitin, Lāṅgali | Saindhavāyana, Babhru | 99 | | Śākalya, Vāṣkali, Śākapūrṇa | ‘Yājñavalkya’ | Rāṇāyanīya, Taṇḍiputra, Parāśara, Bhāgavitti, &c. | ... ... ... | 100 | | Pannagāri, Śaiśireya, Vatsa, Śatabalāka | Śyāmāyani, Āsuri, Ālambi | ... ... ... | Muñjakeśa | a | | ... ... ... | ... ... ... | Lomagāyani, Pārāśarya, Prācīnayoga | ... ... ... | b | | ... ... ... | ... ... ... | ... ... ... | ... ... ... | c | | ... ... ... | ... ... ... | Āsurāyaṇa, a ‘Patañjali’ | ... ... ... | d | | ... ... ... | ... ... ... | ... ... ... | ... ... ... | e | | ... ... ... | ... ... ... | ... ... ... | ... ... ... | f | ### [c32.82](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.82) numbered as far as 100, but beyond that there are no clear royal synchronisms to mark definite steps. ### [c32.83](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.83) Thus the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa shows that Aruṇa Aupaveśi¹ lived well before 800 B.C., and the synchronisms coupled with the date of the Bhārata battle assign him to the early half of the ninth century B.C. Similarly the Jaiminīya shows that Yājñavalkya Vājasaneya lived well before 725, and his position in the table places him more than a century earlier. The Śatapatha notices Uddālaka, Śvetaketu, Śakalya, Āsuri, Madhuka, Prācīnayogya and Satyakāma, and shows that Satyakāma, the latest of them, lived well before 600 B.C. The Kauṣītaki mentions Uddālaka, Śvetaketu and Madhuka, and fixes their time closer in that Madhuka, the latest of these, lived well before 700. The most effective indication is that to the Tāṇḍins belonged the Tāṇḍya or Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa of the Sāmaveda,² so that Taṇḍiputra and all the prior teachers of that Veda in column 7 were anterior to 830 B.C. ### [c32.84](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.84) ¹ Vedic Index i, 35. ### [c32.85](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.85) ² Macdonell, Sansk. Lit., pp. 209-10. Weber, op. cit., p. 68. ### [c32.86](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.86) If then we work on these inferences according to the sequence in the table and with the scale proposed at page 182, we may estimate the periods when the teachers flourished, except as regards those of the Atharvaveda for whom there are no synchronisms. In the ninth century B.C. flourished Uddālaka in the first quarter, Śvetaketu about the middle, and Śakalya and Taṇḍiputra in the third quarter. In the eighth century Āsuri and Madhuka at the beginning, Pañcaśikha in the middle, and Asurāyaṇa and Yāska in the fourth quarter. In the seventh century Satyakāma in the second quarter. This estimate for Pañcaśikha agrees with Buddhist legends, which speak of him as long prior to Buddha.³ ### [c32.87](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.87) ³ Weber, op. cit., p. 236. ### [c32.88](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.88) The account of the Vedic schools shows that Vyāsa's successors exercised individual liberty in dealing with the text of the Vedas as arranged by him, and so there grew up a multitude of modifications which constituted different 'uses'. Five Puranas explain briefly how that happened.⁴ The differences arose from the idiosyncrasies (dṛṣṭi-vibhrama) of the various teachers, and consisted in their arrangement of the mantras and Brāhmaṇas and in their transposition of tones and syllables (svara-varṇa), but the essential text itself remained fixed apparently.¹ The multiplicity and variance of the different uses must have worked their own remedy in the gradual selection of the best versions and the elimination of the rest, until at length one use became generally accepted as the established Saṃhitā text.² The table shows that the growth of diversities continued during at least eight successions of teachers, that is, nearly two centuries according to the above estimated dates. The reverse process could hardly have taken much less time. The two processes therefore probably occupied nearly four centuries, and this may be suggested as one reason why ‘the Saṃhitā text did not come into existence till after the completion of the Brāhmaṇas’ or about 600 B.C.³ ### [c32.89](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.89) ⁴ Vā 58, 12-18. Bḍ ii, 31, 12-18. Mat 144, 11-17. Lg i, 39, 58-60. Kūr i, 29, 44-6. ### [c32.90](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.90) ¹ So Macdonell, \*Sansk. Lit.\*, p. 49. ### [c32.91](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.91) ² Weber, \*op. cit.\*, pp. 13–14. ### [c32.92](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.92) ³ Macdonell, \*op. cit.\*, p. 50. ### [c32.93](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.93) Moreover, when we compare the teachers in column 4 with those in columns 5–8, we notice that there is no agreement between the two classes (except perhaps as regards No. 100, ‘Yājñavalkya’)⁴ until we reach Āsuri and Āsurāyaṇa. This want of agreement is entirely what should be expected, because the Vedic schools could not have dominated all the religious teachers forthwith, and had gradually to make good their special province and authority, each as regards its own Veda. That process would have been slow, not only because of religious conservatism and jealousy,⁵ but also because the multiplicity of competing versions would have weakened their prerogative. It would have required a long time; and the table shows that from Vyāsa’s disciples to Āsuri (when the influence began to appear) was more than a century and a half. During that period religious teachers of the old order would have continued to flourish independently alongside the growing Vedic schools, and that is what column 4 shows.⁶ The two streams of teaching would have persisted, with gradually diminishing difference, even longer than that, and may not have blended till the close of the Brāhmaṇa period. Hence that condition may be suggested as another cause why ‘the Saṃhitā text did not come into existence till after the completion of the Brāhmaṇas’. ### [c32.94](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.94) ⁴ Not certain, because there were several Yājñavalkyas. ### [c32.95](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.95) ⁵ Weber, \*op. cit.\*, p. 13. This would have restricted the citation by one school of teachers of another school. ### [c32.96](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.96) ⁶ Such must have been the position that naturally resulted from the establishment of the Vedic schools, however they were established. ### [c32.97](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.97) Here notice of historical tradition on the religious side closes, for the Puranas and epic contain nothing noteworthy about later teachers. Their account stops with Āsurāyaṇa, who has been assigned to about the end of the eighth century B. C. It was drawn up by the Puranic brahmans as mentioned above, and the fact that they continued the lines of religious teachers, beyond the stage where their secular tradition closed (p. 57), down to about 700 B. C. with precise statements, and allude to nothing later personal except to Buddha curtly or vaguely, indicates that those additions were made then as a second stage while personal knowledge was fresh. Not long afterwards Jainism and Buddhism challenged the supremacy of the brahmans, and no traditions about later teachers were added. Secular chronicles preserved knowledge of the dynasties and kings who reigned in the chief countries, and were incorporated in the Bhaviṣya Purana, and copied later into the Matsya¹ and other Puranas in the third century A. D. and afterwards (p. 50). Religious tradition about the same period would seem to have become too scanty, uncertain or confused amid the religious conflicts to gain admittance into the Puranas. ### [c32.98](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.98) ¹ It existed before (p. 51). ### [c32.99](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32.99) Ancient tradition was compiled into the original Purana about the ninth century B. C., later religious historical tradition was added till the end of the eighth century B. C., and the chronicles of the kings of the Kali age were incorporated in the Puranas in prophetic guise down to the early part of the fourth century A. D. Such were the three main stages of the compilation of historical tradition in the Puranas. ## Linked texts (21) - [Mahābhārata](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.mahabharata.vyasa.13.14) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Brahmāṇḍapurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.brahmanda.2.33.1) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Matsyapurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.matsya.3.29) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.upanisad.mukhya.brhadaranyaka.6.2.1) — Sanskrit - [Liṅgapurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.linga.1.7.41) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Padmapurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.padma.2.75.2) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Agnipurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.agni.150.30) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Varāhapurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.varaha.37.7) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Bhāgavatapurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.bhagavata.9.22.38) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Kūrmapurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.kurma.1.29.44) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Chāndogyopaniṣad](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.upanisad.mukhya.chandogya.5.3.1) — Sanskrit - [Aitareyabrāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana.aitreya.7.5) — Mahidāsa Aitareya, Sanskrit - [Kaṭhopaniṣad](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.upanisad.mukhya.katha.1.1) — Sanskrit - [Śatapathabrāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana.satapatha.11.5.3) — Yājñavalkya & Śāṇḍilya (Vedic teacher), Sanskrit - [Vāyupurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.vayu) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Mānava Dharmaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu) — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit - [Āpastambadharmasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.kalpa.dharma.apastamba) — Āpastamba, Sanskrit - [Harivaṃśa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.mahabharata.harivamsa) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Viṣṇupurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.visnu) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Vālmīkirāmāyaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.ramayana.valmiki) — Vālmīki, Sanskrit - [Gopathabrāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana.gopatha) — Sanskrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.pargiter-1922.c32) · Pramāṇa