Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, so far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans c9: Chapter II. The Brâhmaṇa Period

A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, so far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans c9

Language
English

Contents

Chapter II. The Brâhmaṇa Period

c9.2

Having assigned to the Sûtra literature of India the wide limits of a period extending from 600 to 200 B.C., we have now to examine another and confessedly more ancient class of Vedic writings, differing in style both from the Sûtras, which are posterior, and from the Mantras, which are anterior to them. These are called by the comprehensive name of Brâhmaṇas. But as between the Sûtras and the later Sanskrit literature we discovered a connecting link in the writings known under the name of Pariśiṣṭas, so we meet on the frontier between the Brâhmaṇa and the Sûtra literature, with a class of works, intermediate between the Brâhmaṇas and Sûtras, which claim to be considered first. These are the Âraṇyakas, or "The Treatises of the Forest."

The Âraṇyakas

c9.s1.1

The Âraṇyakas are so called, as Sâyaṇa informs us, because they had to be read in the forest.¹ It might almost seem as if they were intended for the Vanaprasthas only, people who, after having performed all the duties of a student and a householder, retire from the world to the forest to end their days in the contemplation of the deity. Thus it is said in the Âruṇikopanishad, that the Sannyâsin, the man who no longer recites the Mantras and no longer performs sacrifices, is bound to read, out of all the Vedas, only the Âraṇyaka or the Upanishad. In several instances the Âraṇyakas form part of the Brâhmaṇas, and they are thus made to share the authority of Śruti or revelation. We have seen, however, that part of an Âraṇyaka was ascribed to a human author, to Âśvalâyana. Another part is quoted by Sâyaṇa, in his Commentary on the Rigveda¹, as being a Sûtra work of Śaunaka’s. Colebrooke found, in one transcript of this Âraṇyaka, that it was ascribed to Âśvalâyana; but he remarks, “probably by an error of the transcriber.” This is not the case; and it is a good proof of a certain critical conscience even amongst the orthodox dog-

c9.s1.2

¹ Sâyaṇa on the Taittirîyâraṇyaka. अरण्याध्ययनादेतदारण्यकमितीर्यते। अरण्ये तदधीयीतेत्येवं वाक्यं प्रचक्ष्यते॥ And again, एतदारण्यकं सर्वं नाव्रती श्रोतुमर्हति॥ Parts of the Taittirîyâraṇyaka are exempted from the restriction that they

c9.s1.3

¹ P. 112. पंचमारण्यक औष्णिहष्टचाशीतिरिति खंडे शौनकेन सूचितं सुरूपकृत्नुभूतय इति चीष्येंद्रं सानसिं रयिमिति द्वे इति। These words occur in the Aitareyâraṇyaka, v. 2. 11. सुरूपकृत्नुभूतय इति चीष्येंद्रं सानसिं रयिमिति सूक्ते। Other passages quoted by Sâyaṇa from this Âraṇyaka can always be identified in the Aitareyâraṇyaka. Cf. Colebrooke, Misc. Essays, i. 46.

c9.s1.4

should be read in the forest only: नारण्याधीतिनियमः सावित्रादिचतुष्टये; and hence they are ranged with the Brâhmaṇas, अतस्तद्ब्राह्मणग्रंथे श्रुतं व्याख्यातमप्यहः॥ matists of the Hindus, that they acknowledged a certain difference between the Brâhmaṇas and Âraṇyakas, although it was of great importance to them, particularly in their orthodox philosophy, to be able to appeal to passages from the Âraṇyakas as invested with a sacred authority. The most important Upanishads, which are full of philosophy and theosophy, form part of the Âraṇyakas, and particularly in later times the Âraṇyaka was considered the quintessence of the Vedas.¹ Nevertheless it is acknowledged by Indian authors² that a mistake may be made, and the work of a human author may be erroneously received as a part of the sacred book by those who are unacquainted with its true origin. An instance, they say, occurs among those who use the Bahvṛich, a śâkhâ of the Rig-veda, by whom a ritual of Âśvalâyana has been admitted, under the title of the fifth Âraṇyaka, as a part of the Rig-veda.

c9.s1.5

¹ Mahâbhârata i. 258.: "This body of the Mahâbhârata (the index) is truth and immortality; it is like new butter from curds, like the Brahman among men, like the Âraṇyaka from the Vedas, like nectar from medicinal plants, like the sea, the best among lakes, like the cow, the highest among animals." Thus the Upanishad is called the essence of the Veda; Śatap.-brâhm. x. 3. 5. 12. तस्य वा एतस्य यजुषो रस एवोपनिषत्।

c9.s1.6

² This is taken from Colebrooke's extracts from the Pûrvamîmânsâ; a system of philosophy of which it would be most desirable to have a complete edition. (Miscellaneous Essays, i. 307.) Dr. Goldstücker, of Königsberg, has collected large materials for such a work; and I trust he will shortly find an opportunity of publishing the important results of his studies.

c9.s1.7

That the Âraṇyakas presuppose the existence of the Brâhmaṇas may be clearly seen from the Bṛihadâraṇyaka, of which we possess now a complete edition by Dr. Röer, of Calcutta, together with two Sanskrit commentaries. If we take for instance the story of Janaka, who promised a large prize to the wisest Brahman at his sacrifice, and compare this story, as it is given in the Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa (xi. 4. 6.) with the third Adhyâya of the Bṛihadâraṇyaka where the same subject occurs, we find in the Âraṇyaka all the details given almost in the same words as in the Brâhmaṇa, but enlarged with so many additions, particularly with respect to the philosophical disputations which take place between Yâjnavalkya and the other Brahmans, that we cannot hesitate for a moment to consider the Âraṇyaka as an enlargement upon the Brâhmaṇa.

c9.s1.8

The chief interest which the Âraṇyakas possess at the present moment consists in their philosophy. The philosophical chapters well known under the name of Upanishads are almost the only portion of Vedic literature which is extensively read to this day. They contain, or are supposed to contain, the highest authority on which the various systems of philosophy in India rest. Not only the Vedânta philosopher, who, by his very name, professes his faith in the ends and objects of the Veda,¹ but the Sânkhya, the Vaiśeshika, the Nyâya, and Yoga philosophers, all pretend to find in the Upanishads some warranty for their tenets, however antagonistic in their bearing. The same applies to the numerous sects that have existed and still exist in India. Their founders, if they have any pretensions to orthodoxy, invariably appeal to some passage in the Upanishads in order to substantiate their own reasonings. Now it is true that in the Upanishads themselves there is so much freedom and breadth of thought that it is not difficult to find in them some authority for almost any shade of philosophical opinion. The old Upanishads did not pretend to give more than "guesses at truth," and when, in course of time, they became invested with an inspired character, they allowed great latitude to those who professed to believe in them as revelation. Yet this was not sufficient for the rank growth of philosophical doctrines during the latter ages of Indian history; and when none of the ancient Upanishads could be found to suit the purpose, the founders of new sects had no scruple and no difficulty in composing new Upanishads of their own. This accounts for the large and ever growing number of these treatises. Every new collection of MSS., every new list of Upanishads given by native writers, adds to the number of those which were known before; and the most modern compilations seem now to enjoy the same authority as the really genuine treatises.

c9.s1.9

¹ Vedânta is used, but not yet in its technical sense, Taittirîya-âraṇyaka, x. 12. ; a verse frequently repeated elsewhere. वेदांतविज्ञानसुनिश्चितार्थाः संन्यासयोगाद्यतयः शुद्धसत्त्वाः। ते ब्रह्मलोकेषु परान्तकाले परामृताः परिमुचंति सर्वे॥

c9.s1.10

The original Upanishads had their place in the Âraṇyakas and Brâhmaṇas. There is only one instance of a Sanhitâ containing Upanishads — the Vâjasaneyi-sanhitâ, which comprises the Îśa-upanishad, forming the 40th book, and the Śivasankalpa, forming part of the 34th book. This, however, so far from proving the greater antiquity of that Upanishad, only serves to confirm the modern date of the whole collection known under the name of Vâjasaneyi-sanhitâ.¹ But though the proper place of the genuine Upanishads was in the Brâhmaṇas, and here chiefly in those secondary portions commonly called Âraṇyakas, yet in later times, the Upanishads obtained a more independent position, and though they still professed to belong more particularly to one or the other of the four Vedas, that relationship became very lax and changeable.

c9.s1.11

¹ Mahîdhara maintains that some parts of the Upanishad were aimed at the Buddhists, who denied the existence of an intelligent Self, called life a water bubble, and knowledge intoxication.

c9.s1.12

The true etymological meaning of the word Upanishad had been forgotten in India. It is generally explained by *rahasya*, or *guhyâ âdeśâḥ*, mystery; and an artificial etymology is given, according to which Upanishad would mean "destruction of passion or ignorance, by means of divine revelation."² The original signification of the word, however, must have been that of sitting down near somebody in order to listen, or in order to meditate and worship. Thus we find *up* + *sad* used in the sense of sitting and worshipping:

c9.s1.13

² Colebrooke, Essays, i. 92.

c9.s1.14

Rv. ix. 11. 6.—*Námasâ ít úpa sîdata*, "Approach him with praise."

c9.s1.15

Rv. x. 73. 11.—*Váyaḥ suparṇâḥ úpa sedur I'ndram priyámedhâḥ ṛíshayaḥ nâ'dhamânâḥ*, "The poets with good thoughts have approached Indra begging, like birds with beautiful wings."

c9.s1.16

The root *âs*, which has the same meaning as *sad*, to sit, if joined with the preposition *upa*, expresses the same idea as *upa sad*, *i. e.* to approach respectfully, to worship (Rv. x. 153. 1). It is frequently used to express the position which the pupil occupies when listening to his teacher,¹ and it clearly expresses a position of inferiority in such passages as, Śat.-brâhmaṇa, i. 3. 4. 15: “tasmâd uparyâsînam kshatriyam adhastâd imâḥ prajâ upâsate,” “therefore those people below (the Viś or Vaiśyas) sit under, or pay respect to the Kshatriya who sits above.” Still more decisive is another passage in the same work (ix. 4. 3. 3), where upanishâdin is used in the sense of subject: “kshatrâya tad viśam adhastâd upanishâdinîm karoti,” “he thus makes the Viś below subject to the Kshatriya.” There can be little doubt therefore that Upanishad meant originally the act of sitting down near a teacher,² of submissively listening to him; and it is easy to trace the steps by which it came to mean implicit faith,³ and, at last, truth or divine revelation.

c9.s1.17

¹ Pân. iii. 4. 72. comment.: Upâsito gurum bhavân; and upâsito gurur bhavatâ.

c9.s1.18

² In this sense Upanishad is frequently used in the plural, and signifies sessions.

c9.s1.19

³ Chhândogya-upanishad, i. 1. 9. यदेव विद्यया करोति श्रद्धयोपनिषदा तदेव वीर्यवत्तरं। “What a man performs with knowledge, trust, and faith, that is effectual.”

c9.s1.20

The songs of the Veda contained but little of philosophy or theosophy, and what the Brahmans call the higher knowledge is not to be sought for in the hymns of the Rishis. “What,”⁴ says the author of the Śvetâśvatara-upanishad, “what shall a man do with the hymns, who does not know that eternal word of the hymns in the highest heaven, that in which all the gods are absorbed? Those who know it, they are blessed.” The same sentiment is frequently quently expressed, but nowhere with greater force than in a passage of the Katha-upanishad¹, a passage most remarkable in many respects. "That divine Self," the poet says, "is not to be grasped by tradition², nor by understanding, nor by all revelation; by him whom He himself chooses, by him alone is He to be grasped; that Self chooses his body as his own." Rammohun Roy when he visited the British Museum and found the late Dr. Rosen engaged in preparing an edition of the hymns of the Veda, expressed his surprise at so useless an undertaking. But the same philosopher looked upon the Upanishads as worthy to become the foundation of a new religion, and he published several of them himself with notes and translations. "The adoration of the invisible Supreme Being," he writes, "is exclusively prescribed by the Upanishads or the principal parts of the Veda, and also by the Vedant," and if other portions of the Veda seem to be in contradiction with the pure doctrine of the Upanishads, he hints that the whole work must not only be stripped of its authority, but looked upon as altogether unintelligible.³

c9.s1.21

⁴ Śvetâśvatara-upanishad, ed. Röer, Bibliotheca Indica, vii. 339.

c9.s1.22

¹ II. 23. It is also found in the Mundaka.

c9.s1.23

² Pravachana, tradition, the Brahmanas; see p. 109. Commentary: "ekavedasvikaranena," "by learning one Veda."

c9.s1.24

³ Translation of the Kena-upanishad by Rammohun Roy, Calcutta, 1816, p. 6.

c9.s1.25.1

The early Hindus did not find any difficulty in reconciling the most different and sometimes contradictory opinions in their search after truth; and a most extraordinary medley of oracular sayings might be collected from the Upanishads, even from those which are genuine and comparatively ancient, all tending to elucidate the darkest points of philosophy and religion, the creation of the world, the nature of God, the relation of man to God, and similar subjects. That one statement should be contradicted by another seems never to have been felt as any serious difficulty. Thus we read in the first verse of the Śvetâśvatara-upanishad: "Is Brahman the cause? Whence are we born? By what do we live? Where do we go? At whose command do we walk after the Law, in happiness and misery? Is Time the cause, or Nature, or Law, or Chance, or the Elements? Is Man to be taken as the source of all? Nor is it their union, because there must be an independent Self, and even that independent Self has no power over that which causes happiness and pain."¹ The answers returned to such questions are naturally vague and various. Thus Mâdhava in his Commentary on Parâśara, quotes first from the Bahvṛicha-upanishad. "In the beginning this (world) was Self alone, there was nothing else winking. He thought, Let me create the worlds, and he created these worlds." From this it would follow that the absolute Self was supposed to have created everything out of nothing.

c9.s1.25.2

But immediately afterwards Mâdhava quotes from another Upanishad, the Śvetâśvatara (IV. 10.), where Mâyâ or delusion is called the principle, and the Great Lord himself, the deluded.² This is evidently an allusion to Sânkhya doctrines, but Mâdhava explains it in a different sense. He maintains that here also the Divine Self is meant by the Great Lord, and that Delusion is only one of his powers, as heat is a power of fire.¹ And he appeals to another passage in the same Upanishad (I. 3.), where it is said " that sages endowed with meditation and intuition, saw the power of the Divine Self, concealed by his own qualities." This same interpretation is adopted in the Sûtras of the Vedânta-philosophy, but it by no means follows that therefore it is the true one. The principal interest of the older Upanishads consists in the absence of that systematic uniformity which we find in the later systems of philosophy, and it is to be regretted that nearly all scholars who have translated portions of the Upanishads have allowed themselves to be guided by the Brahmanic commentators. The commentators wrote all, more or less, under the influence of philosophical systems, and thought themselves justified in explaining the Upanishads in such a manner that they should agree, even in the most minute points, with the Sûtras of the philosophical schools. But the authors of the Upanishads were poets rather than philosophers.

c9.s1.25.3

Truth itself assumed, in their eyes, an aspect varying according to their own feelings and misgivings. We saw that the Bahvṛicha-upanishad placed Ātman or the Self at the beginning of all things. The Taittirīya-upanishad¹ speaks of Brahman the true, omniscient, and infinite, and derives from it the ether, the air, fire, water, earth, plants, food, seed, and body.² This, in the eyes of the later commentators, may appear substantially the same doctrine as that of the Bahvṛicha-upanishad. But to us it is of interest to mark the difference, and to watch the various attempts which were made to express the idea of a creator. The Bahvṛichas, by calling him Ātman in the masculine, showed that they were impressed more strongly with the idea of a personal Being; the Taittirīyas, speaking of Brahman as neuter, gave more prominence to the idea of a Power. It was an epoch in the history of the human mind when the identity of the masculine Self and the neutral Brahman was for the first time perceived, and the name of the discoverer has not been forgotten. It was Śāṇḍilya who declared that the Self within our heart is Brahman (Chhând.-up. iii. 4. 14. p. 208.), and this tenet, somewhat amplified, is quoted as "Śāṇḍilya's wisdom" by the author of the Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa (x. 6. 3.). Other sages among the Chhandogas³ again speak simply of a *Sat*, or a Being, which desired to be many, and created the light, the light flowing into water, the water into food, and so on.

c9.s1.25.4

The Âtharvaṇikas speak of the Creator as *Akshara*, and it must remain doubtful whether they connected with this word the idea of the Indestructible or of Element.¹ The term used by the Vâjasaneyins is *Avyâkṛita*, or the Undeveloped. Every one of these terms had originally a meaning of its own, and though in later times they may all be used synonymously, they ought to be kept distinct when we are tracing the history of the human mind. Some of the ancient sages, after having arrived at the idea of *Avyâkṛita*, Undeveloped, went even beyond, and instead of the *Sat* or τὸ ὄν, they postulated an *Asat*, τὸ μὴ ὄν, as the beginning of all things. Thus we read in the Chhândogya-upanishad²: “And some say, in the beginning there was *Asat* (not being), alone, without a second; and from this *Asat* might the *Sat* be born.”

c9.s1.26

¹ किं कारणं ब्रह्म कुतः स्म जाता जीवाम केन क्व च संप्रतिष्ठिताः। अधिष्ठिताः केन सुखेतरेषु वर्तामहे ब्रह्मविदो व्यवस्थाम्॥ कालः स्वभावो नियतिर्यदृच्छा भूतानि योनिः पुरुष इति चिंत्या। संयोग एषां न त्वात्मभावादात्माप्यनीशः सुखदुःखहेतोः॥

c9.s1.27

² मायां तु प्रकृतिं विद्यान्मायिनं तु महेश्वरम्। तस्यावयवभूतैस्तु व्याप्तं सर्वमिदं जगत्॥

c9.s1.28

¹ ननु श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषदि मायायाः प्रकृतिलं परमात्मनस्तन्नियंतत्वं श्रूयते मायां तु० इति। नायं दोषः। मायायाः परमात्मशक्तित्वेन शक्तिमतोऽप्यात्मनः प्रकृतित्वावश्यंभावात्। दहनशक्तियुक्तेऽग्नौ दाहकत्वे व्यवहारदर्शनात्। आत्मशक्तित्वं च मायायास्तस्यामेवोपनिषदि श्रुतं ते ध्यानयोगानुपता अपश्यन्देवात्मशक्तिं स्वगुणैर्निगूढामिति॥

c9.s1.29

¹ Bibl. Ind. vii. 56.

c9.s1.30

² Purusha is body rather than man. Mâdhava says: तत्र पुरुषशब्देन शिरःपाण्याद्याकृतियुक्तो देहोऽभिधीयते। स च देहो ब्रह्मादिस्तंबांतो बहुप्रकारः॥

c9.s1.31

³ Chhând.-up. vi. 2.; Bibl. Ind. iii. 394. सत्वेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीत् एकमेद्वितीयं। तदैक्षत बहु स्यां प्रजायेयेति।

c9.s1.32

¹ See Goldstücker’s Dictionary, s. v. Mâdhava says: अक्षुत इति वा न क्षरतीति वा परमात्मानमाचष्टे॥

c9.s1.33

² Chhând.-up. vi. 1. तद्धैक आहुरसदेवेदमग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयं तस्मादसतः सज्जाये।

c9.s1.34

But in spite of the great variety of philosophical thought on this and similar subjects that was to be found in the Upanishads, the want of new Upanishads was felt by the sects which sprang up in every part of

c9.s1.35

तत्तेजऽसृजत। तत्तेज ऐक्षत बहु स्यां प्रजायेयेति तद्योऽसृजत॥

c9.s1.36

India.¹ The old Upanishads, however, were not rejected, and to the present day the ten which are chiefly studied in Bengal are the Brihadâranyaka, the Aitareya, Chhândogya, Taittirîya, Îśa, Kena, Katha, Praśna, Muṇḍaka and Mâṇḍûkya-upanishads. Every one of these has been published, and we possess an excellent edition both of text and commentary by Dr. Röer in the volumes of the Bibliotheca Indica. The whole number of Upanishads, however, known to be or to have been in existence, is much larger. It was commonly stated at 62², but it has lately been brought as high as 108³, and even higher. Some of the titles given in various lists belong most likely to smaller portions of certain Upanishads, and these extracts, adopted by some sect or other, were afterwards quoted as independent treatises.⁴ Many are of very modern origin, and have no right to be mentioned in connection with Vedic literature. In order, however, to have this whole mass of literature together, every work that claims the title of Upanishad on any ground whatsoever, has been incorporated in an alphabetical list, which will be printed as an Appendix. There are several works which had to be consulted in drawing up this list. First, Anquetil Duperron’s Oupnekhat⁵, a work which contains the translation of fifty Upanishads from Persian into Latin. [The author of this Persian translation is supposed to be Dârâ Shakoh, the eldest son of Shah Jehan, and pupil of Babu Lal; but in reality the work seems to have been performed by several Pandits, whom that enlightened prince called from Benares to Delhi, ordering them to translate some of their sacred works into Persian. Three years after the accomplishment of their work, their patron was put to death by his brother Aurung-

c9.s1.37

¹ Ward, A View of the History, Literature, and Mythology of the Hindus, ii. 61.

c9.s1.38

² Ward, loc. cit. p. 61.

c9.s1.39

³ W. Elliot, Journal of the As. Soc. of Bengal, 1851, p. 607.

c9.s1.40

⁴ The Maitreyî-upanishad (29. 89.) is probably meant for the Dialogue between Yâjnavalkya and Maitreyî in the Brihadâranyaka. The Śâṇḍilya-upanishad (57. 105.) seems to be a portion of the Chhândogya-upanishad.

c9.s1.41

⁵ Oupnekhat, id est, Secretum tegendum : opus ipsa in India rarissimum continens antiquam et arcanam, seu theologicam et philosophicam doctrinam, e quatuor sacris Indorum libris, Rak

c9.s1.42

beid, Djedjer baid, Sam baid, Athrban baid, excerptam; ad verbum, e Persico idiomate, Samskreticis vocabulis intermixto, in Latinum conversum; Dissertationibus et Annotationibus difficiliora explanantibus, illustratum: studio et opera Anquetil Duperron, Indicopleustæ. Argentorati, typis et impensis fratrum Levrault, vol. i. 1801: vol. ii. 1802.

c9.s1.43

Duperron received a MS. of the Persian translation of the Upanishads from M. Gentil, the French resident at the court of Soudjaëddaulah. It was brought from Bengal to France by M. Bernier, in the year 1775. Duperron, after receiving another MS., collated the two, and translated the Persian into French (not published) and into literal Latin.

c9.s1.44

The Persian translation, of which several other MSS. exist, bears the following title in Duperron’s translation: “Hanc interpretationem τῶν Oupneknathai quorumvis quatuor librorum Beid, quod, designatum cum secreto magno (per secretum magnum) est, et integram cognitionem luminis luminum, hic Fakir sine tristitia (Sultan) Mohammed Dara Schakoh ipse, cum significatione recta, cum sinceritate, in tempore sex mensium, (postremo die, secundo τοῦ Schonbeh, vigesimo,) sexto mensis τοῦ Ramazzan, anno 1067 τοῦ Hedjri (Christi, 1657) in urbe Delhi, in mansione nakhe noudeh, cum absolutione ad finem fecit pervenire.”

c9.s1.45

The MS. was copied by Atma Ram in the year 1767 A.D. Duperron adds: Absolutum est hoc Apographum versionis Latinæ τῶν quinquaginta Oupnekhatha, ad verbum, e Persico idiomate, Samskreticis vocabulis intermixto, factæ, die 9 Octobris, 1795, 18 Brumaire, anni 4. Reipubl. Gall. Parisiis.

c9.s1.46

zeb.¹ Secondly, there is Colebrooke's Essay on the Vedas, which gives a more complete enumeration of the Upanishads. Thirdly, Weber's Analysis of Duperron's translation of the Upanishads, in his "Indian Studies." Fourthly, an article by Mr. W. Elliot in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1851, giving an account of Upanishads known in the South of India, among the Telugu Brahmans. Fifthly, Dr. Röer's introductions to the various Upanishads, edited and translated by him in the volumes of the Bibliotheca Indica. There are other works, the well-known pamphlets of Rammohun Roy, the Essays of Pauthier, Poley, d'Eckstein, Windischmann, and the publications of the Tattvabodhini Society, all of which had to be consulted in drawing up our own alphabetical list.

c9.s1.47

¹ Elphinstone, History of India, ii. 446. An earlier instance of a translation of the Upanishads is mentioned in Elliot's Historians of India, i. 260. "Abdul Kâdir, author of the Tarikh-badaum, who died at the close of the 16th century, says that he was called upon to translate the Âtharvaṇa-veda from the Hindi, which he excused himself from doing on account of the exceeding difficulty of the style and abstruseness of meaning; upon which the task devolved on Hájí Ibrahim Sirhindi, who accomplished it satisfactorily."

c9.s1.48

The names of the authors of the principal Upanishads² are unknown. This is owing to the very character of these works. They contain authoritative statements on the highest questions, and such statements would lose all authority if they were represented to the people at large as the result of human reasoning and imagination. They, in a higher degree than any other part of the Vedas, must have been considered from the very beginning as revelation, and as directly communicated to the world by the Supreme Spirit. This sentiment is clearly expressed in the beginning of the Muṇḍaka-upanishad: " Brahman (masc.), the creator of the universe, the preserver of the world, appeared first among the gods. He taught the knowledge of Brahman (neuter), the foundation of all knowledge, to Atharvan, his eldest son. Atharvan long ago imparted the knowledge of Brahman, which Brahman had explained to him, to Angis; he told it to Satyavâha Bhâradvâja, Bhâradvâja in succession to Angiras. Śaunaka, the great lord, approached Angiras respectfully, and asked: 'What is it through which, if known, all this becomes known?'" ¹ It is stated that the text of the Upanishads, after it had once been revealed, was never affected by differences, arising from the oral tradition of various Śâkhâs; and in one instance where various texts of the same Upanishad have been noted by the Brahmans, they are ascribed to various localities, but not to various Śâkhâs. Each Śâkhâ, however, was supposed to be possessed of an Upanishad, and the Muktikâ states boldly that, as there are 1180 Śâkhâs, there ought properly to be as many Upanishads.

c9.s1.49

² Some of the most modern Upanishads are confessedly the works of Gauḍapâda, Śankara, and other more recent philosophers.

c9.s1.50

¹ See Muṇḍaka-up. ed. Röer.

c9.s1.51

Another reason why we never hear of the authors of Upanishads as we hear of the Rishis of hymns is that in many instances the Upanishads are mere compilations from other works. Verses from the hymns are incorporated into various Upanishads, and stories originally propounded in the Brâhmaṇas, are enlarged upon by the compilers of these philosophical tracts.

c9.s1.52

In cases only where the Upanishads form part of an Âraṇyaka, the reputed authors of the larger works might likewise be considered as the authors of the Upanishads. This authorship, however, is different from the authorship of a Gauḍapâda and Śaṅkara. As the Bṛihadâraṇyaka forms part of the Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa, Yâjnavalkya, the reputed author of the Brâhmaṇa, might well be considered as the author of the Upanishad known by the name of Bṛihadâraṇyaka. It forms the last five Prapâṭhakas of the 14th book of the Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa in the Mâdhyandina-śâkhâ, whereas in the Kâṇva-śâkhâ the whole of the 17th book is comprised under the name of Upanishad. Yâjnavalkya Vâjasaneya is mentioned towards the end of the Bṛihadâraṇyaka as the person who received the whole of the White Yajur-veda from Âditya or the Sun. His influential position at the court of Janaka, king of Videha, is alluded to several times, and one portion of the Bṛihadâraṇyaka is called the Yâjnavalkîyam Kâṇḍam, as specially celebrating the victories gained by that sage over all his rivals. But even if we accept the traditional opinion that Yâjnavalkya was the author of the Brâhmaṇa and the Âraṇyaka, such a supposition would be of very little help to us in determining the probable age of the Upanishad portion of the Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa. We need not enter at present into the question whether the supposed authorship of Yâjnavalkya implies that he actually composed, or only that he collected and arranged the sacred code of the Vâjasaneyins. That code is, no doubt, in some peculiar sense, considered as Yâjnavalkya’s own work. At the time of Pâṇini it was called by a name which, by its very character, indicated that the Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa was a work due to the exertion of one individual, and that it was not, like other Brâhmaṇas, simply proclaimed by him (prokta), or formed the traditional property of an ancient Vedic Śâkhâ bearing his name. This, together with a remark in the Vârttika to Pâṇini, iv. 3. 105., may be interpreted as indicating the more modern date of this Brâhmaṇa and its Âraṇyaka, as compared with the Brâhmaṇas and Âraṇyakas of other Vedas. But beyond this, the name of Vâjasaneya Yâjnavalkya, as the reputed author of these works, will not help us in fixing the age of the Vâjasaneyi-brâhmaṇa-upaniṣad.

c9.s1.53

Attempts have been made to fix the age of Yâjnavalkya, as the author of a Law-book, and to transfer this date to the author of the Vedic works, just mentioned. The versifier, however, of these laws is as distinct from the original Yâjnavalkya, as the poetical editor of the Laws of the Mânavas is from the mythic Manu, the founder of the Mânava-śâkhâ.

c9.s1.54

Although the poetical editor of this code of laws speaks of the Âraṇyaka¹ as his own work, nobody will be misled by an assertion of this kind.² But

c9.s1.55

¹ This can only mean the Bṛihadâraṇyaka, as the commentator also observes.

c9.s1.56

² Yâjn. Dh. iii. 110.

c9.s1.57

ज्ञेयं चारण्यकमहं यदादित्यादवाप्तवान् ।
योगशास्त्रं च मत्प्रोक्तं ज्ञेयं योगभीप्सता ॥

c9.s1.58

"He who wishes to attain Yoga (union with the Divine Spirit) must know the Âraṇyaka, which I have received from Âditya, and the Yoga-śâstra, which I have taught." I thought, at first, that there might have been old Dharma-sûtras of Yâjnavalkya, and that the versifier of these Sûtras took this sentence simply even the age of the versifier of the Yâjnavalkîya code of laws is difficult to determine. Professor Wilson, in his “Ariana Antiqua” (page 364), observes that the word Nânaka, a gold or silver coin having upon it the figure of Śiva, may be derived from Nâna, a term which occurs on the coins of Kanerki, and is supposed to be “the name of a goddess; probably the same as the Anaitis or Anahid of the Persians, or the tutelary goddess of Armenia, Anaia, or Nanaca.” If so (and I think the explanation extremely doubtful) the age of Yâjnavalkya’s legal dicta in which the word Nânaka occurs, would be subsequent to the era of Kanerki, and, as Professor Stenzler remarks in his edition of Yâjnavalkya, the second century after Christ would be the earliest date that could be assigned to Yâjnavalkya. Now the identification of Nânaka and Nâna (Nanaia, Nana Rao,) is a very ingenious conjecture, but no more. Even if admitted to be true, we should still have to prove that the same goddess did not occur in the same way on more ancient oriental coins. As the Hindus derived from the Sûtras. I have not yet found, however, Yâjnavalkya-sûtras on Âchâra. The so-called Vaishnava-dharma-śâstra, or Śrî-bhagavad-Vishnu-sanhitâ, which has been printed at Calcutta, contains large portions of Sûtras which have been worked up in a very crude manner into a law treatise. The whole chapter on the anatomy of the human body, which in the Yâjnavalkîya Code precedes the verse in question (iii. 110.), a chapter which does not stand in the Mânava code, exists, still in prose, in the Vishnu-sanhitâ (fol. 28. a. line 11.). The simile of the lamp, also, representing the mind in the middle of the body, is borrowed by the editor of the Yâjnavalkîya Code from the Vishnu-sanhitâ (fol. 29. a. line 1.). Yet, although the Vishnu-sanhitâ, like the Code of Yâjnavalkya, goes on describing the Yoga, no mention is made here of the Âranyaka, nor does the author speak of himself in the first person, as the author of the metrical Code does.

c9.s1.59

their knowledge of coined money from foreign nations, Nâṇakas may have been current in India long before the time of Kanerki, though the Nâṇakas of Kanerki may be the first known to us as coined in India. The occurrence of a word like Nâṇaka¹, therefore, is not sufficient by itself to prove that the second century after Christ is the earliest date of the Yâjnavalkîya Code, still less of Yâjnavalkya, as Professor Stenzler supposes. But whatever date may be assigned to this Śloka work, the date of Yâjnavalkya, the author of the Âraṇyaka and the Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa, would not be affected by it in any way, and the Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa is the only work from which we may expect information on this point.

c9.s1.60

¹ In the same way it might be said that the Rig-veda-sanhitâ could not have been collected before the second century after Christ, because the word Nishka occurs in the hymns. Nishka is a weight of gold, or gold in general, and it certainly has no satisfactory etymology in Sanskrit. Nothing seems to be more likely than that it should be derived from Kanishka, the Sanskrit name of Kanerki, as we speak of a "Sovereign," the French of a "Louis." The first syllable Ka may be taken as the usual royal prefix, particularly as Fahian calls the same king Kanika and Nika. (Cf. Reinaud, Mémoire sur l'Inde, p. 76.) Yet nobody would draw from this the conclusion that the Veda was written after the time of Kanishka. If Nishka be really derived from the name of Ka-Nishka, Kanishka must have been the name or title of more ancient kings, whose money became known in India. But Nishka may have a very different etymology, and at all events it does not furnish any solid basis for chronological conclusions. Nishka does once occur in Pâṇini's Sûtras, v. 2. 119.; and it is frequently quoted as an example. Pâṇ. iv. 3. 156. निष्केण क्रीतं नैष्किं। निष्कस्य विकारः नैष्किः। द्वि-निष्कः। द्वि-नैष्किः। Pâṇ. i. 4. 87. उप निष्के कार्षापणं। v. 2. 119. नैष्कशतिकः। vi. 2. 55. निष्कमाला। iv. 3. 153. हाटको निष्कः। Cf. v. 1. 37.

c9.s1.61

Another attempt has been made to fix the age of Yâjnavâlkya, or, at least, to assign certain chronological limits to the first origin of the Śâkhâ of the Mâdhyandinas, a subdivision of the Vâjasaneyins. Arrian, when speaking of the course of the Ganges, mentions among the rivers falling into the Ganges, the "Andomatis, flowing from the country of the Mandiadini, an Indian people."¹ Lassen thought he discovered in this the Sanskrit word Mâdhyandina, meridional; and, as a mere conjecture, such a remark was valuable. Professor Weber, however, went beyond this, and, taking for granted the identity of Mandiadini and Mâdhyandina, taking for granted also the identity of this Indian people with the Mâdhyandina, a subdivision of the Śâkhâ of the Vâjasaneyins, he concluded that the text of this Śâkhâ, *i. e.* the Sanhitâ and Brâhmaṇa of the White Yajur-veda, published by himself, must have existed in the third century B. C. Such rapid conclusions are rarely safe. There may have been such a people as the Mâdhyandinas at any time before or after Christ, and there may have been such a Śâkhâ as that of the Mâdhyandinas at any time before or after Christ, but the people need not have had any connection with that Śâkhâ, as little as the Prâchyas or Prasii had anything in common with the Śâkhâ of the Prâchya-Kaṭhas, or the Καμβίσθολοι, another Indian people, mentioned by Greek writers, with the Śâkhâ of the Kapishṭhalas. Granted, however, that the Śâkhâ was formed in the country of the Mâdhyandinas, and derived its name from it, nothing whatever would follow from this as to the exact date when this was effected.

c9.s1.62

¹ Indische Alterthumskunde, i. 130.; Schwanbeck, Megasthenis Indica, p. 106.

c9.s1.63

A second Âraṇyaka is that of the Taittirîyas. As the Taittirîya-veda (or the Black Yajur-veda) is always represented as anterior to the White Yajur-veda, the Taittirîya-âraṇyaka also might be expected to be older than the Bṛihadâraṇyaka. It is more likely, however, that the Taittirîya-âraṇyaka did not yet exist at the time when Yâjnavalkya, after seceding from his master, founded a new school, and endowed it with a new Sanhitâ and Brâhmaṇa. The Âraṇyaka of the Taittirîyas may have been added to their Brâhmaṇas subsequently to this schism, in the same way as the Bṛihadâraṇyaka is certainly later than many portions of the Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa. At all events the Taittirîya-âraṇyaka represents the latest period in the development of the Vedic religion, and shows a strong admixture of post-vedic ideas and names. The same applies also to several parts of the Taittirîya-brâhmaṇa, the last part of which does not belong to Tittiri, but is ascribed to Katha, the same Muni to whom the beginning of the Âraṇyaka is said to have been revealed.¹ There are some traces which would lead to the supposition that the Taittirîya-veda had been studied, particularly in the south of India, and even among people which are still considered as un-Aryan in the Brâhmaṇa of the Rig-veda. In the Taittirîya-âraṇyaka different readings are mentioned, which are no longer ascribed to different Śâkhâs but to certain countries in the south of India, like those of the Drâviḍas, Ândhras, and Karṇâṭakas. This fact by itself would throw some doubt on the antiquity and genuineness of this class of Vedic writings¹, at least in that form in which we now possess them.

c9.s1.64

¹ See page 224.

c9.s1.65

¹ I find that Harisvāmin also, in his commentary on the Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa, quotes the Dākṣiṇātyas and Saurāṣṭras, together with the Kāṇvas, as authorities on Vedic subjects. See Dr. Weber's Ind. Studien, i. 77. In the same place Dr. Weber attempts to prove the late origin of this work by the contraction of sa indraḥ into sendraḥ. This contraction, however, occurs already in the Rig-veda-saṃhitā. See also Pāṇ. vi. 1. 134.

c9.s1.66

The Taittirīya-āraṇyaka consists of ten books, of which the four last are devoted to Upanishad doctrines. No author is mentioned, and Tittiri, who might seem to hold the same position for the Taittirīyāraṇyaka which Yājnavalkya holds for the Bṛihadāraṇyaka, is represented by the Brahmans themselves neither as the author nor as the first teacher. He received the tradition from Yāska Paingi, who received it from Vaiśampāyana. Tittiri himself handed it on to Ukha, and he to Ātreya. Tittiri, therefore, was believed to be the founder of a Śākhā, but not the author of the Āraṇyaka.

c9.s1.67

A third Āraṇyaka is the Aitareya-āraṇyaka, belonging to the Rig-veda. It forms a work by itself, and is not counted as part of the Aitareya-brāhmaṇa. This is an important point. The work consists of five books or Āraṇyakas², the second and third of which form the Bahvṛicha-upanishad, if by this name we like to distinguish the complete Upanishad from a portion of it, viz.: Adhyâyas 4—6, of the second Âraṇyaka, commonly quoted as the Aitareyopanishad. If we ask for the name of the author, we find again the same uncertainty as in the Bṛihadâraṇyaka and the Taittirîyâraṇyaka. All we know for certain is that there was a Śâkhâ of the Aitareyins, which was in the possession of a Brâhmaṇa and an Âraṇyaka. Both these works were afterwards adopted by the later Śâkhâs of the Rig-veda, so that we actually hear of an Âśvalâyana text of the Aitareyakam. We also know from the Chhândogya-upanishad (iii. 16.) that there was a Mahidâsa Aitareya, who, by means of his sacred knowledge was supposed to have defied death for 1,600 years; and in the Aitareya-âraṇyaka, not in the Brâhmaṇa, he is several times quoted by the same name as an authority. In the later commentaries, a story is mentioned according to which the Brâhmaṇa and Âraṇyaka of the Rig-veda were originally revealed to one Aitareya, the son of Itarâ. This story, however, sounds very apocryphal, and had a merely etymological origin. Itarâ, in Sanskrit, means not only the other of two, but also low, rejected. Thus, if the patronymic Aitareya was to be accounted for, it was extremely easy to turn it into a metronymic, and to make Aitareya the son of an Itarâ, a rejected wife. Thus Sâyaṇa, in his introduction to the Aitareya-brâhmaṇa, tells us that there was once a great Rishi who had many wives. One of them was called Itarâ, and she had a son called Mahidâsa. His father preferred the sons of his other wives to Mahidâsa, and once he insulted him in the sacrificial hall, by placing all his other sons on his lap. Mahidâsa's mother, seeing her son with tears in his eyes, prayed to her own tutelary goddess, the Earth (svîyakuladevatâ Bhûmiḥ), and the goddess in her heavenly form appeared in the midst of the assembly, placed Mahidâsa on a throne, and gave him on account of his learning the gift of knowing the Brâhmaṇa, consisting of forty Adhyâyas, and, as Sâyaṇa calls it, another Brâhmaṇa, treating "of the Âraṇyaka duties."

c9.s1.68

² The first Āraṇyaka consists of five Adhyāyas and twenty-two Khaṇḍas. The second Āraṇyaka consists of seven Adhyāyas and twenty-six Khaṇḍas. The Upanishad begins with the fourth Adhyāya and the twenty-first Khaṇḍa. The third Āraṇyaka consists of two Adhyāyas and twelve Khaṇḍas. The fourth Āraṇyaka consists of one Adhyāya and one Khaṇḍa (ascribed to Āśvalāyana in Ṣaḍguruśishya's commentary on the Sarvānukrama). The fifth Āraṇyaka consists of three Adhyāyas and fourteen Khaṇḍas (ascribed to Śaunaka).

c9.s1.69

This, and similar stories mentioned by Colebrooke¹, are not calculated to inspire much confidence. On the contrary we feel inclined to attach more value to the accidental admissions of the Brahmans who ascribe the later portions of the Aitareyâraṇyaka to such well known authors as Śaunaka and Âśvalâyana. There may have been an Aitareya, the founder of the Śâkhâ of the Aitareyins, and himself the expounder of those ceremonial, philological, and philosophical tracts which are incorporated in the Brâhmaṇa and the Âraṇyaka of the Aitareyins. He is quoted himself as an authority in those works, but nothing is said in them of his degraded descent, nor of the erudition granted to him by the goddess of the earth.

c9.s1.70

¹ Miscellaneous Essays, i. 46. n.

c9.s1.71

Another Âraṇyaka, belonging to another Śâkhâ of the Rig-veda, is the Kaushîtaki-âraṇyaka. Colebrooke stated in his Essay on the Veda that "the original of the Kaushîtakam was among the portions of the Veda which Sir Robert Chambers collected at Benares, according to a list which he sent to me some time before his departure from India." According to the catalogue of Sir Robert's MSS. which are now at the Royal Library at Berlin, there is in that collection lection not only the text and commentary of the Kaushîtaki-brâhmaṇa, but likewise the Âraṇyaka, in three Adhyâyas, of which the third constitutes the Kaushîtaki-upanishad. Here again we know nothing as to the name of an author, Kaushîtakin being simply the name of that sect in which the text of these works was handed down from teacher to pupil. There are no Âraṇyakas for the Sâma-veda, nor for the so-called fourth Veda, the Âtharvaṇa.

c9.s1.72

Traces of modern ideas are not wanting in the Âraṇyakas, and the very fact that they are destined for a class of men who had retired from the world in order to give themselves up to the contemplation of the highest problems, shows an advanced, and already declining and decaying society, not unlike the monastic age of the Christian world. The problems, indeed, which are discussed in the Âraṇyakas and the old Upanishads are not in themselves modern. They had formed the conversation of the old and the young, of warriors and poets, for ages. But in a healthy state of society these questions were discussed in courts and camps: priests were contradicted by kings, sages confounded by children, women were listened to when they were moved by an unknown spirit.¹ This time, which is represented to us by the early legends of the Âraṇyakas, was very different from that which gave rise to professional anchorites, and to a literature composed exclusively for their benefit. As sacrifices were performed long before a word of any Brâhmaṇa or Sûtra had been uttered, so metaphysical speculations were carried on in the forests of India long before the names of Âraṇyaka or Upanishad were thought of. We must carefully distinguish between a period of growth, and a period which tried to reduce that growth to rules and formulas. In one sense the Âraṇyakas are old, for they reflect the very dawn of thought; in another, they are modern, for they speak of that dawn with all the experience of a past day. There are passages in these works, unequalled in any language for grandeur, boldness, and simplicity. These passages are the relics of a better age. But the generation which became the chronicler of those Titanic wars of thought, was a small race: they were dwarfs, measuring the footprints of departed giants.

c9.s1.73

¹ A Kumârî gandharvagṛihîtâ is quoted as an authority in the Kaushîtaki-brâhmaṇa, and it is explained by “viśeṣâbhijñâ.” Kaush.-br. ii. 9.; Ait.-br. v. 29. Ind. Studien, i. 84. 217.

c9.s1.74

Chronologically we can see with great clearness that the Âraṇyakas are anterior to the Sûtras. It is only in their latest portions that they show traces of the style of Sûtra compositions. We can likewise see that they are later than the Brâhmaṇas, to which they themselves, in several instances, form a kind of appendix. Beyond this we cannot go, and an impartial consideration of the arguments adduced in favour of a much earlier or a much later date for this class of Vedic literature, will show a complete absence of facts and arguments, such as are required for historical inductions. Whether Pâṇini knew the Âraṇyakas as a branch of sacred literature is uncertain. Although he mentions the word “âraṇyaka,” he only uses it in the sense of “living in the forest;” and it is the author of the Vârttikas¹ who first remarks that the same word is also used in the sense of "read in the forest." The word *Upanishad*, besides being used in the Upanishads themselves¹, occurs in the Sûtras of Pâṇini (i. 4. 79), but there is nothing to prove that Pâṇini knew *Upanishad* as the name of a class of sacred writings.

c9.s1.75

¹ IV. 2. 129.

c9.s1.76

¹ Ait.-âr. iii. 1.; ibid, i. 11. Upanishasâda.

c9.s1.77

It is hardly necessary to remark that at the time when the Âraṇyakas were written, the hymns of the Saṃhitâs were not only known, but known in the same form in which we now possess them.² The Rig-veda is quoted as a whole, and as consisting of ten Maṇḍalas. Though the name of Maṇḍala is not used, the names assigned to each of the ten books are the same as those used in the Anukramaṇîs, and they follow each other in the same succession. Nay, these names had evidently been current for some time before, for the author of the Âraṇyaka assigns the most extraordinary etymologies to them, and uses them in support of the wildest speculations. He first mentions the Śatarchins or the poets of the first Maṇḍala. He then comprehends the poets of Maṇḍala II. to IX. under the common name of the Mâdhyamas, assigning to the poets of the tenth and last Maṇḍala the name of Kshudrasûktas and Mahâsûktas. The middle books are enumerated more in detail under their usual names, Gṛitsamada, (ii.), Viśvâmitra (iii.), Vâmadeva (iv.), the Atris (v.), Bharadvâja (vi.), Vaśishṭha (vii.), the Pragâthas (viii.), the Pâvamânîs (ix.) The names also of Rig-veda, Yajur-veda, and Sâma-veda occur as literary titles in this Âraṇyaka.³

c9.s1.78

² Ait.-âr. ii. 9.

c9.s1.79

³ Ait.-âr. i. 10. : Bhûr bhuvaḥ svar ityetâ vâva vyâhṛitaya ime trayo vedâ, bhûr ityeva Ṛig-veda, bhuva iti Yajur-vedaḥ, svar iti Sâma-vedaḥ.

c9.s1.80

The etymologies assigned to these names are not perhaps more absurd than those which we find in the Brâhmaṇas. But there are other etymological explanations in the Âraṇyakas such as we scarcely find in any genuine Brâhmaṇa. Part of the first Âraṇyaka (i. 4.) reads almost like a commentary on the first hymns of the Rig-veda, and the short glosses scattered about in these books of the forest might well be considered as the first elements of a Nirukta.

c9.s1.81

The grammatical study of the hymns of the Veda was evidently far advanced, and scholastic pedantry had long taken the place of sound erudition, when the early portions of the Âraṇyaka were composed. Not only the ten books of the Rig-veda are mentioned, but likewise their subdivisions, the hymns (sûkta), verses (ṛich), half-verses (arddharcha), feet (pada), and syllables (akshara). Sometimes the syllables of certain hymns and classes of hymns are counted, and their number is supposed to possess a mysterious significance. In one passage (ii. 12.) speculations are propounded on the division of letters into consonants (vyañjana), vowels (ghosha), and sibilants (ûshman).

c9.s1.82

Admitting, therefore, that the Âraṇyakas represent the latest productions of the Brâhmaṇa period, and that in some cases their authors belong to the age of Śaunaka, in others even to a more modern age, we have now to consider the character of the genuine Brâhmaṇas, in order to point out the differences which distinguish the Brâhmaṇas from the Sûtras by which they are followed, and from the Mantras by which they are preceded.

The Brâhmaṇas

c9.s2.1

The difficulty of giving an exhaustive definition of what a Brâhmaṇa is, has been felt by the Brahmans themselves. The name given to this class of literature does not teach us more than that these works belonged to the Brahmans. They were brahmanic, *i. e.* theological tracts, comprising the knowledge most valued by the Brahmans, bearing partly on their sacred hymns, partly on the traditions and customs of the people. They profess to teach the performance of the sacrifice; but for the greater part they are occupied with additional matter; with explanations and illustrations of things more or less distantly connected with their original faith and their ancient ceremonial.

c9.s2.2

Sâyaṇa, in his introduction to the Rig-veda ¹, has given such extracts from the Pûrva-mîmânsâ philosophy as may furnish a pretty correct idea of the Brâhmaṇas, and he has treated the same subject again in his Introduction to the Aitareya-brâhmaṇa.

c9.s2.3

¹ Rig-veda-bhâshya, p. 11.

c9.s2.4

“A Brâhmaṇa,” he says, “is twofold, containing either commandments (vidhi), or additional explanations (arthavâda). This is confirmed by Âpastamba, saying: ‘The Brâhmaṇas are commandments for the sacrifices; all the rest consists of additional explanations.’ The commandments, too, are of two kinds, either causing something to be done, which was not done before, or making something known which was not known before. Of the former kind are all those commandments occurring in the prac-

c9.s2.5

tical part, such as, ‘At the Dîkshaṇîyâ ceremony he presents a puroḍâśa oblation to Agni and Vishṇu.’ Of the latter kind are all philosophical passages, such as, ‘Self was all this alone in the beginning.’

First 91 of 611 passages. Read on

Linked texts (54)