The History of Indian Literature c8.175

c8.175

The third Bráhmaṇa of the Sámaveda bears the special title of *Chhándogya-Bráhmaṇa*, although Chhándogya is the common name for all Sáman theologians. We, however, also find it quoted, by Śaṃkara, in his commentary on the Brahma-Sútra, as “*Táṇḍinám śruti*,” that is to say, under the same name that is given to the Pañchaviṅśa-Bráhmaṇa. The two first *adhyáyas* of this Bráhmaṇa are still missing, and the last eight only are preserved, which also bear the special title of *Chhándogyopanishad*. This Bráhmaṇa is particularly distinguished by its rich store of legends regarding the gradual development of Brahmanical theology, and stands on much the same level as the Vṛihad-Áraṇyaka of the White Yajus with respect to opinions, as well as date, place, and the individuals mentioned. The absence in the Vṛihad-Áraṇyaka, as in the Bráhmaṇa of the White Yajus generally, of any reference to the Naimiśíya-Ṛishis, might lead us to argue the priority of the Chhándogyopanishad to the Vṛihad-Áraṇyaka. Still, the mention in the Chhándogyopanishad of these, as well as of the Mahávṛishas and the Gandháras—the latter, it is true, are set down as distant—ought perhaps only to be taken as proof of a somewhat more western origin; whereas the Vṛihad-Áraṇyaka belongs, as we shall hereafter see, to quite the eastern part of Hindustán. The numerous animal fables, on the contrary, and the mention of Mahidaśa Aitareya, would sooner incline me to suppose that the Chhándogyopanishad is more modern than the Vṛihad-Áraṇyaka. With regard to another allusion, in itself of the greatest significance, it is more hazardous to venture a conjecture: I mean the mention of Kṛishṇa Devakíputra, who is instructed by Ghora Áṅgirasa. The latter, and besides him (though not in connection with him) Kṛishṇa Áṅgirasa, are also mentioned in the Kaushítaki-Bráhmaṇa; and supposing this Kṛishṇa Áṅgirasa to be identical with Kṛishṇa Devakíputra, the allusion to him might perhaps rather be considered as a sign of priority to the Vṛihad-Áraṇyaka. Still, assuming this identification to be correct, due weight must be given to the fact that the name has been altered here: instead of Áṅgirasa, he is called Devakíputra, a form of name for which we find no analogy in any other Vedic writing excepting the Vaṅśas (genealogical tables) of the Vṛihad-Áraṇyaka, and which therefore belongs, at all events, to a tolerably late period.∗ The significance of this allusion for the understanding of the position of Kṛishṇa at a later period is obvious. Here he is yet but a scholar, eager in the pursuit of knowledge, belonging perhaps to the military caste. He certainly must have distinguished himself in some way or other, however little we know of it, otherwise his elevation to the rank of deity, brought about by external circumstances, would be inexplicable.⁶⁸