The History of Indian Literature c8.168

c8.168

Of special significance for the time of the composition of the Táṇḍya Bráhmaṇa are, on the one hand, the very minute descriptions of the sacrifices on the Sarasvatí and Dṛishadvatí; and, on the other, the Vrátyastomas, or sacrifices by which Indians of Aryan origin, but not living according to the Brahmanical system, obtained admission to the Brahman community. The accounts of these latter sacrifices are preceded by a description of the dress and mode of life of those who are to offer them. "They drive in open chariots of war, carry bows and lances, wear turbans, robes bordered with red and having fluttering ends, shoes, and sheepskins folded double; their leaders are distinguished by brown robes and silver neck-ornaments; they pursue neither agriculture nor commerce; their laws are in a constant state of confusion; they speak the same language as those who have received Brahmanical consecration, but nevertheless call what is easily spoken hard to pronounce." This last statement probably refers to prákritic, dialectic differences, to the assimilation of groups of consonants, and similar changes peculiar to the Prákṛit vernaculars. The great sacrifice of the Naimishíya-Ṛishis is also mentioned, and the river Sudáman. Although we have to conclude from these statements that communication with the west, particularly with the non-Brahmanic Aryans there, was still very active, and that therefore the locality of the composition must be laid more towards the west,⁶⁴ still data are not wanting which point us to the east. Thus, there is mention of Para Áṭṇára, king of the Kosalas; of Trasadasyu Purukutsa, who is also named in the Ṛik-Saṃhitá; further of Namin Sápya, king of the Videhas (the Nimi of the epic); of Kurukshetra, Yamuná, &c. The absence, however, of any allusion in the Táṇḍya-Bráhmaṇa either to the Kuru-Pañchálas or to the names of their princes, as well as of any mention of Janaka, is best accounted for by supposing a difference of locality. Another possible, though less likely, explanation of the fact would be to assume that this work was contemporary with, or even anterior to, the flourishing epoch of the kingdom of the Kuru-Pañchálas. The other names quoted therein seem also to belong to an earlier age than those of the other Bráhmaṇas, and to be associated, rather, with the Ṛishi period. It is, moreover, a very significant fact that scarcely any differences of opinion are stated to exist amongst the various teachers. It is only against the Kaushítakis that the field is taken with some acrimony; they are denoted as *vrátyas* (apostates) and as *yajnávakírṇa* (unfit to sacrifice). Lastly, the name attached to this Bráhmaṇa,∗ viz., Táṇḍya, is mentioned in the Bráhmaṇa of the White Yajus as that of a teacher; so that, combining all this, we may at least safely infer its priority to the latter work.⁶⁵